*small disclaimer* On the whole, I think 3D works best for animated movies (think Pixar and Into the Spiderverse) as opposed to live action. I don’t really address that in the video, which is focused on live action films shot on real cameras. Please feel free to debate this in the comments, or yell at me on Twitter: twitter.com/PentexP
Was there any well made live action stereoscopic movie? I don't count Avatar, despite having by far the best 3D and really requiring it to make it's world believable (looks like a game in 2D); it's to a large part an animated movie and the live action parts have compositing issues.
@@thoreberlin Tron Legacy, Resident Evil AfterLife, Amazing Spiderman 1, Dr. Strange, Ready Player One, Life of Pi, Step Up 3D, Pacific Rim. Those just the top of my head.
Yes, Up was one of the best 3D experiences I had. When you consider the "flat" look of the first third of the film, it's utterly transformed once the house takes off we can feel the glorious height. It's tied in with a key emotional beat in the film, so it's not functioning in a gimmicky way.
With the rising popularity of IMAX discussion, there’s also the increase in TV screen size and resolution to consider. The gap between the home experience and theater experience is getting narrower. So I agree that if you’re going to try to get a truly non-home theater experience, IMAX is the way to go (if you have access to one) Also, I remember seeing 3D movies after Avatar and the appeal sliding away. So the brand dilution argument is on point.
I disagree…a theater (IMAX) experience is vastly different from what you get at home… I think it will never be the same unless you build a cinema in your home… I believe that Live Music Concert, Theater, etc… are experiences that aren’t replicable at home.
@@oniriscope i have a projector screen "larger" that imax when you count viewing distance and an atmos audio setup in 46 sq m (500 sq f) studio apartment it is much easier and cheaper than you think
Worked on over 30 films converting them from 2D to 3D. There are some things that 3D cameras do well, and there are a metric truck ton of things that it just does not handle. There are a rack of movies I am not legally allowed to admit were actually converted, but they were big box office titles that sold by saying they were "shot in 3D", when in reality we converted half of it to fix all of the mistakes that occur with 3D cameras. Specifically, the way light doesn't enter both lenses consistently or equal to each other. So you end up with this really weird hazy glowy image in one eye and a darker crisp image in another. BUT, these movies were praised for their 3D, so we like to silently smile and sit back while critics talk all this good shit about 3D conversions without knowing it. :)
Anti3D came from constant conditioning by articles, old directors who already didn't like digital cinema or vfx and the film snobs who don't like change. The format is great, immersive, fun but I guess to an amateur filmmaker it might add more obstacles in their way to breaking into the industry. So there's an allure to cling onto 100 year old tech because it's non threatening.
So well said Penguin man. I had to see Dune on Vue Xtreme as they had stopped showing it in iMax, but it still blew me away. I saw Gravity at the London Waterloo and it was like being in space. Was disappointed with Interstellar there, which actually got trumped by seeing it again at the Royal Albert Hall with a live orchestra and debate with Nolan before about the film. Next level! It's all about experience!
That Interstellar thing sounds absolutely incredible, & I'm not even a huge fan of that movie (it's good; don't get mad). It really is about the experience. I'm in charge of two volunteers at work, & one of them said a couple months ago they're never going to a movie theater again; I said, "You're out of your mind, homie," lol
About dealing with "other people" during a screening: After seeing Dune in 2D in my home town on a 16x8 m screen I was impressed and got lucky: The nearest IMAX decided to show it again 6 weeks later on their 27x22m screen and in the OV! Besides the film being an totally awesome experience in this setting, I will remember the screening for 2 things: Decpite it being the pandemic and everybody had to be vaccinated and bring a recent covid test in addition, the cinema was packed! And what was even more amazing: Everybody got absolutely quite as soon as the movie started and stayed silent until the end of the runtime! So yes: IMAX is just such a great experience!
@7.29 the intro to Dark Knight as a "trailer" on the Imax screen is still to this day probably the best movie going experience I've ever had. I don't remember the movie I was watching, but I just remember everyone in the cinema being completely enthralled with the scene. Everything about it is just cinematic perfection and was hightened by the fact that nobody in the theater had any idea it was coming.
I remember it so vividly. It made me wonder why more movies don't just play an entire scene as a trailer instead of making something bespoke. I just had to know what happened next!
The first IMAX film i ever saw was ghost protocol, and the trailer to that film was the plane hijacking in dark knight rises. Between that and the Burj khalifa scene in GP, I almost shat my pants. One of the scariest and most awe-inspiring cinematic experiences I've ever had.
I worked for IMAX for a few years, in fact see my avatar is my racing helmet in front of our in-house theater. It was really a great place to work with people that were passionate about movies. See movies in our theater before they came out to the general public sometimes was absolutely mind-blowing. I actually saw movies in the theaters that I've already seen in the office because of the impact it made
It is important to note that while being 9 times larger than the 35mm standard film, the "effective resolution" is greatly dependent on the fineness of the celluloid film's grain and the projector being used to project the final film. Because many projectors are now digital, these films end up getting scanned digitally for colour and editing work so the cinema delivery might be anywhere from 2k, 4k, 8k or whatever the projector is capable of.
@@PentexProductionsA million years too late to this comment, but Melbourne is superior to Sydney now in probably every way. Sydney’s new IMAX is smaller and doesn’t have a film projector. Melbourne is also operated independently as part of the museum complex rather than run by a chain like Event, so they have a tendency to play more documentaries and more older films, including lots of actual literal physical films. Also to my knowledge Melbourne also actually has the largest 1.43:1 screen in the world. Imo Germany having the largest IMAX screen doesn’t count if you can’t watch movies in full IMAX frame.
I knew an Aussie would pick me up on this - you are correct that Melbourne was the largest until very recently. The German one opened only a few months ago, and I only discovered that when researching this video: www.globalconstructionreview.com/germany-to-open-worlds-biggest-imax-screen-in-time-for-latest-bond-movie/
@largechips you’re still partially correct. Melbourne still has the largest full frame IMAX ie 1.43:1. So still the biggest screen in the world for watching any full frame IMAX movie like The Dark Knight or Dune Part 2, but for 1.90:1 movies like Avengers Infinity War, Germany has the biggest screen.
Generally agree with a few quibbles. I was lucky enough to see "Dunkirk" in true Imax at Universal City and it was an absolutely immersive experience - so much so I've never seen it again because I don't want to see a lesser version, but I also saw Cameron's Titanic doc "Ghosts of the Abyss" in 3D Imax at the same theater and that was amazing as well and really gave you the feeling of being at the wreck. Imax 3D on a true Imax screen is the ultimate movie experience. Lymax is still a step up from regular screens because the sound and picture is generally better. It's sad that most people just don't get to see true 3D or true Imax movies. You might also do a video about High Frame Rate. Got to see the first "Hobbit" in HFR and it was much clearer than regular frame rate but I can understand why people want the more "cinematic" look. 3D also requires much more care to shoot. I wrote most of the 3D issue of Cinefantastique back in the day so spent a lot of time with people explaining how difficult it was to do properly from designing the shot to gettiing the lenses properly aligned to making sure the projection increases the brightness to compensate for polarized lenses. One last comment for fun. Oddly enough, one of the best old 3D movies I've ever seen is the much-derided "Robot Monster." I got to see a special theatrical screening of it at a 3D festival in Los Angeles and although it's still an eye-rollingly bad movie, I was very surprised that technically, the black and white 3D photography was great. A lot of the movie was shot in foothills around Los Angeles and both the foreground and distant background were very sharp and being familiar with the areas, I had no problems matching up the experience of being there in person with what I was watching on the screen. I don't remember who shot it, but whoever did knew what the hell they were doing. A true unsung hero...
Great comment, and I mostly agree. I didn't articulate it properly in the video, but the point I was trying to make was that 3D done properly by a skilled film-maker using it with creative intent is a genuinely unique cinematic experience - especially for things like Ghosts of the Abyss or Caves of Forgotten Dreams. The issue with quick-and-dirty and widespread post-conversion is that general audiences had know way of knowing what was intentional and what was just a quick cash grab, and the brand diluted as a result, to the detriment of film-makers who knew how to use 3D properly. You also touched on a whole section of the video I cut which is basically that most conventional theatres have industry standards for projector settings, which film-makers work to knowing their work will be displayed consistently across venues. 3D films do not have those standards, hence many theatres not adjusting their projectors properly for the polarisation levels of the 3D captured by the film-maker. This is one of the reasons IMAX 3D is a better experience - the theatres are usually set up to display the image with the correct settings.
@@PentexProductions Can't disagree. Post-conversion is definitely problematic. I went to the press screening of "Wrath of the Titans," at the Grauman's Chinese no less, so the tech requirements were good, but my bud and I walked out going "Uhhhhh, didn't anyone look at this before they showed it to us?" I think the "Let me out of this picture" floating hair will go down in 3D infamy. Pity, because I really love 3D and am sorry it's largely faceplanted (IN 3D!!!) again. Now do HFR. Great technology if they can ever figure out what to do with it...
Steve yedlin (ASC) did a great breakdown of all different camera resolutions and formats and found that IMAX film has less perceived resolution than an arri 65 due to film having artifacts such as halation - so yes, IMAX is high Res (11k not 12) but other factors affect sharpness more than just pure film or digital pixel size. 35mm film is technically 6k, but it doesn't look close to as sharp as a 2.5k arri sxt
My best cinematic experience (also my first) was seeing the Lowell Thomas travelogue "Seven Wonders of the World" in Cinerama. I was 8 years old and excited with this experience of seeing this film with the three projectors and the 7 channel surround sound. I wasn't lucky enough to see "How the West was Won" or the "Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm" in that format, but It was exciting to see at least this film in Cinerama.
Nice video, but it was a real missed opportunity when you mentioned the brand dilution of 3D to talk about how diluted IMAX is becoming with "fake" IMAX screens everywhere and the majority of the movies being shown in IMAX not actually filmed in IMAX, just like how the majority of 3D movies shown in the last couple decades were not actually filmed in 3D. I'm lucky to have a full 4K laser IMAX screen in my city and the movies on it are stunning (when filmed in IMAX and shown in 4:3), but there are also a few other "fake" IMAX screens in the area that pale in comparison to it but charge the same fee.
I agree, and it may be something I cover in the future. IAMX risks going the same way as 3D if it waters down the quality to try and get more views. Might work in the short term, but it's not a long term plan. The IMAX brand needs to stay with filmmakers who know how to use it.
Agree with pretty much everything said here. Avatar was an event in 3d, most other films aren't enhanced by it and some are worsened (Clash of the Titans was almost unwatchable). As home cinema expands, IMAX will always offer the most standout experience, completely differentiating itself from watching movies at home.
You can (at a price). There’s no reason not to display IMAX movies at their correct aspect ratio of 1.90:1 on a 16:9 television. Tho to get anything close to the IMAX “experience” you need a pretty big TV - 77” or over for sure. But more interestingly, the native aspect ratio and resolution of JVC’s D-ILA projectors is not 16:9 like a television, but 17:9, 4096 x 2160, which is the same as a 4K digital cinema projector and also the aspect ratio for IMAX Digital. All you do (assuming you have the cash!) is make or buy a 1.90:1 projection screen, get the viewing distance correct and you basically have the IMAX viewing experience at home. The sticking point is that some blu-ray and 4K Blu-ray releases of movies filmed for IMAX are matted to the traditional ‘scope movie aspect ratio of 2.39:1, as they would have been shown in non-IMAX theatres. That means they’re getting the top and bottom of the frame cropped off. Often that’s ok when nothing crucial was placed in that part of the frame, but things like Infinity War and Endgame in particular were very obviously framed for 1.90:1 and really suffer when cropped to 2.39:1. Hopefully this will shake out over time and “filmed for IMAX” movies will start to get home releases in their proper aspect ratio. Disc re-releases of Infinity War and Endgame in IMAX ratio would be nice tho. IMAX on Disney+ is a start, but committed fans and collectors of these movies really want them on 4K Blu-ray.
have you seen Life of Pi? In my opinion it is the best 3D movie ever(and still is), it showcases how a great 3d movie could have done right. The 3d effect really enhanced the immersiveness on top of the spectacular color and lighting that it already has. The 3D effect does make a lot of difference. But if the movie does not have great color or lighting then it won't have that mach of impact. The camera angle and the shot continuity are also important to build up the immersiveness. I think 3d isn't easy to master, but it will be the last piece of puzzle to create the ultimate visual immersiveness. And of course 4DX+3D will be even greater.
I didn't see it in 3D, but can absolutely see how it'd work for the format. I fully acknowledge some movies are well suited to 3D - my point is more that because so many films were (badly or cheaply) converted to 3D in such a short period in the early 2010s, they drowned out the talented filmmakers who were actually using it properly in movies like Life of Pi, so people didn't realise that it could actually be used well in the right hands.
Interesting video with some good points. You don't have to look far to find strong animosity towards 3D (see vitriolic comments below...), but there are a lot of people who still appreciate and love what it can do to enhance a film. I do take some issue with a few points here: Firstly, post-converted 3D is often *way* better than natively shot 3D (for example I defy anyone with functioning binocular vision to tell me the 3D in Tron Legacy is better than in, say, Aquaman). Secondly, Nolan, for the great films he's made, can be a colossal buffoon: The notion that stereo 3D is a waste of time because it only accounts for "5%" of depth information is as ridiculous as saying that multi-channel sound is a waste of time because you can hear all the same sounds in mono. (Come to think of it, I think he still sticks to 5.1 rather than 3D audio: Anyone want to defend that..?) He's not a 3D fan, I get it, but if Scorcese can make a 3D masterpiece (he can, and he did), then I'm afraid Chris "Tim-Nice-But-Dim" Nolan's opinion on the subject doesn't count for much as far as I'm concerned. The Walk, Hugo, The Life Of Pi, TS Spivet, Gravity: All classic 3D films from the modern era, massively enhanced by the format. It's not just kids' animations and comic book films, some serious film makers who understand 3D have worked wonders with it. And no gimmicky variable aspect ratio in them (well, a tiny bit in Life of Pi - but that was to have fun with the 3D). The biggest problem with Imax movies is that the art of film composition takes a massive hit because of it: An Imax film has to work in three different shapes (two different Imax shaped screens - which is ludicrous enough - as well as 2.39:1), so it's shot "safe" for all of them. And that's no way to make a movie...
All good points, and well made. I agree that there are many movies that benefitted from 3D - native or post converted. As I said in the pinned comment too, I think it generally works well for animated movies too. I guess my argument was the brand dilution one. After seeing a few bad post conversions in a cinema not properly equipped to show 3D properly (dark screen from the polarisation, etc), audiences would have no way of knowing that the films you listed would be any different - even though they were intentionally made by the film-makers to use 3D to tell a better story. So it's less about the format itself, and more about how it's overuse in a short space of time by a lot of people who didn't know how to make the most of it resulted in the format losing much of it's appeal to general audiences - hence the box office numbers. I don't say it in the video but I think IMAX risks going the same way with the more accessible but lower quality 'Filmed In IMAX' cameras. Anyway, thanks for watching and the thoughtful comment.
@@PentexProductions Absolutely true. Bad post-conversions (as well as weak native 3D) really turned people off: I always thought that when someone writes the book, "Why 3D Failed. Again", one of the chapters should be called "Clash of the Titans." THX succumbed to brand dilution, and I'm sure Dolby Atmos is dancing with danger (Atmos branded *soundbars* is stretching it; I even have a Dolby Atmos branded *tablet*...) If IMAX branding is put on a TV it'll be a bad sign! Keep up the great work, cheers.
@@itsluek I agree that what makes for "good" 3D is subjective. And "strong" 3D isn't by default "good" 3D. However, whether a film's 3D is strong or weak is an objective fact, and many post-converted films have stronger 3D than many natively shot ones. To a lot of people (myself frequently included), that automatically makes their 3D more appealing Totally agree about Titanic (not only post-converted, but also obviously shot with zero consideration of how well it would later convert). Jurassic Park's in the same boat (so to speak). And both of those were wrangled into 3D before the post conversion process got *really* good. The later high quality post conversions have been able to create totally convincing depth *and* dimension: Some of the most solidly sculpted and three dimensional faces I've seen have been in post-converted rather than native films. Not only that, but they can put scenes into 3D in a way that a stereo camera rig couldn't possibly do. I'm not for a moment saying "post-conversion is better", just that some post-converted films have better (and not just stronger) 3D than some natively shot ones. And it was unimpressive native ones, as much as badly post-converted ones, that helped to turn people off from 3D this time around. A couple you mention, Hugo and TS Spivet are, in my opinion, two of the best 3D films ever made (stereo on both by Demetri Portelli, coincidentally or not). But Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was shot with an almost constantly tiny interaxial and, as a result, it's a great example of a native 3D movie from the modern era where they were conservative with their implementation of 3D to the point at which I don't know why they bothered. (Actually, I think I do: The studio's accountants wanted the receipts from a 3D release...). Matt Reeves has been quoted as saying (I'm slightly paraphrasing) that he wanted to achieve a "2D aesthetic"! (I would have very happily used that one in my original comparison: I say Aquaman's 3D is much, much better than DOTPOTA's - and it's not just stronger, but it does more to support the story-telling.) I find Tron Legacy fascinating: It's frequently been cited as one of the great 3D movies. Even today there are people who rave about it. The 3D in the film is demonstrably very weak and extremely unimpressive. So why so much love for it? Sadly, I think, it's an example that totally supports Nolan's notion that 95% of depth information comes from 2D depth cues: People are bamboozled by its pretty "3D" computer graphics (and possibly the expanded IMAX ratio...) and interpret them as good 3D. From a purely stereoscopic point of view though, its 3D is incredibly poor.
I live in Leonberg (where the biggest imax screen opened just a few months ago) and oh boiiii dune was the best movie I've ever saw in my live. That cinema just elevated the experience to another lever you can't describe it.
Fascinating... I saw Dune four times in premium seats - twice in IMAX (well, LIMAX), twice in 3D (albeit with the additional thrill of D-box rattling and rumbling). Neither was ideal: both looked almost blurry at times (even at times when it wasn't supposed to) and the 3D glasses made an already dark movie even darker. I presume the full IMAX treatment would have been much better, but I don't live close enough to a true IMAX venue that actually showed Dune to judge for myself... I have since seen Dune on 4K (with HDR) at home and while it wasn't ideal either (my TV screen is too small for that and not IMAX-ratio, of course), it was arguably clearer than in the cinema (especially for the darker scenes), had a more natural dynamic range for human eyes and made me feel more like I was in the same space as the actors. I suspect the scope for seeing (and then rewatching at home) Dune-like IMAX spectacle/event films is always going to be much more limited than for more "small screen"-friendly fare, if only because of how much more expensive IMAX cinemas (and their eventual home-cinema counterparts) are or will prove to be. My hope is that Dune and other films shot with a lot of IMAX-ratio scenes will soon be available for 4K or 8K projection on big(-ish) screens at home since I doubt TV manufacturers will ever produce affordable IMAX-ratio TVs given the limited size of the market...
It's a shame there isn't more of an effort to standardise the projection settings in commercial theatres so that audiences get a consistent experience. I actually cut a whole section of this video that talked about that also being a reason 3D declined in popularity - a lot of cinemas simply didn't know how to set up their projectors and theatres to properly display the films, which is one of the reasons viewers often complained about how dark they were. Similar issue is facing some LieMAX screens sadly.
I was at university when The Dark Knight Rises was coming out and I managed to bag a few tickets to a preview (Bain plane sequence) and it was my first IMAX experience and was hosted at the Bradford National Science and Film Museum, UK which boasts a 60ft IMAX screen the viewing experience was phenomenal. No one made noise we were just sucked into the scene from the moment that jeep appeared onscreen. I still have my event exclusive Bain t-shirt from that viewing and it certainly won me over to IMAX. I think the only 3d films I watch are when I splurge and get DBOX (which is moving chairs which tilt, vibrate and lean to the action). I save that experience for Star Wars usually or films I feel that will take advantage of it with SW for instance the tilting seats work well for space combat. The best experience of DBOX I've had was my second date with my girlfriend which was Mad Max Fury Road and I've never had a cinema experience match that - the chairs didn't stop the whole time it was so immersive. But as a title that was post converted to 3d that experience was 100% immersive because of the DBOX and not the 3d.
Yes! Fury Road in 3D/Dbox is hands down one of the best cinematic experiences I've ever had, easy. Maybe its cause I'm skinny so the seats work better on me (some heavier people have compared it to a massage lol) but I was IN that movie completely as if I was taking part in all the car action. It was like a really long theme park ride and it was glorious. I still think about potentially getting a home Dbox seat one day just for that movie.
The only thing that can get me back to movie theaters is that crazy dome being built in Vegas. Other than that, regardless of how big a movie theater screen is unless it actually looks more detailed than my home TV, then I am not going.
Never seen a movie in IMAX but it's definitely a bucket list thing. We only have a couple in Sweden, most of them in Stockholm. If I'm ever visiting for a weekend or more, I'll try to prioritize that.
It's videos like this that are the reason me and my entire family are going to see avatar 2 in imax on Christmas Eve and we've bought all the top row seats. It's gonna be a special night! I've waited 13 years for this film I can't wait
The only 3d I've really liked was when a few of the older Disney movies were re-released (very fascinating to see the different layers of animation), and Jurassic Park in IMAX 3d, which worked surprisingly well for a movie not made for either format.
I've seen Dune on different occasions, different formats: regular IMAX, 3D IMAX, 50 inch TV and finally 17 inch laptop screen. Each time the screen got smaller, I liked the movie better. I think that as a movie of cosmic proportions, it shows too much small objects covering the whole screen, like faces, detailed shots of IDK crysknife and similar small objects. There's no space for your eyes to rest. I still love the movie, but for me, the main advantage of going to see it in cinema was the sound.
3D can be a detriment to the viewing experience. IMAX is always a plus. When you're sat watching a "3D" version you get that 3D pop in the first 20 minutes. Then it wears off and you don't even know you're watching 3D. The depth disapears. With IMAX you always know you're watching IMAX, as well as the sound system that goes with it. I watched Avatar and it wore off, and that was the benchmark. The ultimate of 3D movies. I've only seen a few movies in 3D like Gravity, then at a frinds request I watched The Martian again after watching it regular. Some of the scenes were so dark(fault of the projection/cinema), you could barely see anything, and I regretted watching it in 3D. I never regret watching anything in IMAX. I saw Blade Rinner 2049 at the Printworks IMAX, Manchester, UK, and it was an awesome experience. I still talk about it today. 3D on a small screen cost more than the Printworks IMAX for a lesser experience, and you have to watch a darkened version, with glasses on your head.
Yeah, but IMAX 3D is WAY different than RealD 3D which is shown most of the time and pretty crappy. Comparing IMAX 3D to IMAX would be a much better comparison.
Well, in the cinematic wasteland that is the south part of Sweden we don't have an IMAX theater. I have to go 300 kilometers to the nearest one in Sweden. Sure I could go to Denmark but with the prices for a movie ticket these days a trip to Denmark is not something I would like to include. I have seen "Into Darkness" at a proper IMAX theater in Stockholm and that was amazing!
It's worth the trip sometimes! In New Zealand we only have one screen - I remember flying to Auckland specifically to see The Dark Knight Rises in the IMAX there.
I remember seeing Avatar opening night during the grand opening of an IMAX theater in Florida and it blew me away. Definitely a highlight of my movie-going experience. During the past couple of years I have become an avid 3D enthusiast, which is admittedly a demographic which grows smaller every day. While theaters were shuttered, I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to build a home theater during the pandemic and opted for a 3D enabled projector and now enjoy watching new releases on a 15 foot screen at home. And while I admit, many of the early 3D releases following Avatar were subpar, especially the conversions, the technology has improved by leaps and bounds. While the majority of 3D films today are conversions, they look significantly better than most of the rush-job conversions during the height of the 3D boom (2011-2014), but sadly it seems that theres no one left that cares. And while native 3D is still impressive, my personal top 5 3D films are all conversions. But, we remaining 3D diehards are holding out hope that Avatar 2 will introduce new technology (ie: 4k 3D) that will revitalize interest in the dying medium, but I certainly wont be holding my breath.
I like that IMAX helps push boundaries of filmmaking (but I dislike that it is shooting itself in the foot with dilution). That said, my absolute favorite way to watch movies is in VR. I can choose the size of the screen, distance, subtitles or not (I'm looking at you, Nolan), and 3D movies can really take it to the next level when watched in 3D in VR (Avatar, Into the Spider Verse - that leap of faith scene!, Gravity, even BR2049 in 3D in VR are amazing experiences!). Plus I can lie down while watching, and cry as much as I want without feeling embarrassed :) My worst movie experience to date has been those 4D things. Absolutely horrible.
8:25 slight correction for a 2 year old video: Infinity War was the first fully IMAX filmed movie. I was actually quite disappointed with Endgame in IMAX because I felt they didn’t shoot for the format very well. It just felt like a normal movie where everything is shot mostly in close up. There’s are a few shots in the final battle that make good use of the frame, but they don’t last long enough to be worth it. I found Infinity War’s use of the format much better as it contained sequences with a lot more wise sweeping action. The rare combination of being filmed for both IMAX and 3D is amazing, which I saw in Tron Legacy recently. And the only other film I can think of worth seeing in 3D is Gravity - however I don’t really think it worked as well blown up on the IMAX screen as it did in a regular sized theatre. Non-IMAX films being blown up for the format don’t work very well imo, so it frustrates me that there are still massive movies today like Furiosa and Planet of the Apes that are being marketed heavily by IMAX but not shot for the format at all. I am hoping the success of Oppenheimer and Dune Part 2 will make shooting in full frame IMAX, or at least 1.90:1, more common place for big studio films.
Love the video! I will add that with the right home setup, IMAX can even make a difference there. I have an in-home theater and on the 4K movies I've watched with IMAX scenes (The Dark Knight, Batman V Superman, etc) the difference in quality is SIGNIFICANT. Even on home TV, they look way better. It also makes me more bummed we didn't get the IMAX scenes for the 4K release of Dune. :/ That said, I think there are formats emerging that can compete with IMAX and offer experiences almost as good. For example, I watched "The Revenant" which was filmed with Arri Alexa 65 and Epic Red Dragon cameras, and it looked AMAZING. And call me old fashioned, but even with a fancy home setup, I agree it doesn't beat seeing in a theater. Seeing movies in the theater and sharing the experience with others is special.
The problem is that on the blurays the Imax scenes are cropped for 1,77 ... the 1,43 scenes are separated bonus scenes on the 4K release of the Dark Knight Rises. If you hage a 16/9 projector or screen well a 1,43 will give you a weird feeling. I've enjoyed something like Zack Snyder's Justice League, but I've yet to see the latest Batman V Superman master that has the Imax scenes in 4/3 so it goes from 2,35 to 1,43 ...
I agree, I'm not a fan of 3D although it can work well on purely animated material. But it still generally gives me eyestrain and when used for live action, especially applied in post, can look terrible. In contrast I've been a huge fan of IMAX since watching the Dream is Alive and the other film docs in the 80's on the original massive screens. Today it's hard to find a screen or material that exploit the full 1.33:1 height, but when you do - or come close enough - it can still be spectacular. I've loved watching Nolan's IMAX films and the Mission Impossible sequences, but also enjoyed how Tron legacy used the format - and 3D - to do a Wizard of Oz transition from the outside World to inside the grid. Most recently Dune was a must see for me in IMAX, with the best option in the Uk being at the old Empire (now CineWorld) Leicester Square (I think Printworks Manchester is bigger, but having just seen Spiderman there, I thought the projection, sound and seating wasn't anywhere near as good as at the Empire, albeit 2.5 times cheaper!). Dune in IMAX was jaw dropping for me at times and I almost can't bring myself to watch it it any other format now. Disappointingly the 4k Blu Ray doesn't even expand beyond 2.35:1 to 16:9 - hopefully there'll be a 'special IMAX enhanced edition'. I also wanted to say, don't let the plethora of other videos stop you covering the same subject if that's something you want to make a video about. When I started on UA-cam, I was the only one making videos about cameras. Today there's thousands of us all talking about the same thing which isn't ideal BUT every viewer has a favourite channel and will seek them out even if there's loads of others talking about the same thing. I really enjoy your videos, so will always watch what you've made whether it's unique or about a popular subject. Keep making what you want to make and forget how many others may be doing the same or similar.
Thanks Gordon - the Leiscester Square IMAX is an amazing theatre (I saw The Last Jedi there and it was beautiful). I totally agree on the aspect ratio - it was something I really appreciated in Tenet's scenes on the Amalfi Coast, showing the heights of the cliffs. And thanks for the support too on covering popular topics - it's nice to hear others are interested in what I have to say! Thanks for the insightful comment, as always.
I never liked 3d in theaters I'm not sure why, but I have a mini theater with a 3d projector and it's a whole different experience watched avater for the first time in 3d was 7 when it came out and it was amazing. Experience wish more movies would have 3d real 3d
The push for 3D in cinema wasn't about 3D. Simply put it forced cinemas to move over to digital projectors. the new crop of 3D movies was ONLY available in digital formats. The change to digital was expensive and cinemas were reluctant to invest because their was no benefit to them for 2D movies . Digital is cheaper for distribution than film reels but for cinema houses it makes no difference ( except film has no DRM ... )
I totally agree with everything you say in this video - really great stuff! However, i think it’s really important to further notice the difference between regular 3D vs imax 3D. A regular 3D is just 1 image projected on to the screen whereas imax has 2 projectors actually projects 2 separate images on to the screen which really improves the 3D experience. (This is also why 3D imax glasses don’t work for regular 3D and vice versa. I managed to put a showing of the new Spiderman in 3D imax and it actually incredible!
In the end 3D stereoscopic restricts film making options more than it expands . Certain classic 2D shots ( like the over the shoulder shot in a conversation ) become problematic and restrictive in 3D. I suggest you look up 'stereoscopic edge violation.' and 'depth grading' then do another video essay on why stereoscopic 3D is just another kludge to fool our eyes.
It was mentioned in passing, but IMAX Digital is not the same experience as a true 15/70 IMAX screen. And the vast majority of nominally IMAX screens now are Digital. Dolby Cinema >> IMAX Digital, for the record.
Yeah it was a segment I cut for pacing reasons, but the increasing adoption of Digital IMAX instead of the full 70mm film risks it having the same brand dilution effect as 3D post-conversion, where an inferior experience is advertised the same way as the premier quality one.
I absolutely love IMAX, but I think it is being ruined and will face the same death as 3D. I remember the first IMAX films I saw where in museums because that's where the format was originally intended to be seen. And every time it blew my tiny mind as a little kid, this was back in the early 2000's when all those films where still on film. The image is huge, and incredibly bright! The brightness is what truly makes it an experience for me! The image is so clear and crisp, and the colours so real it's like it completely overwhelms all your senses and tricks you into being completely absorbed by the film! I love IMAX to death. I love that Christopher Nolan loves it to death. Unfortunately IMAX themselves don't love it to death. Proper IMAX films are far to expensive. To shoot and show. You need special equipment with expensive film and cameras that weigh a ton. It's a huge commitment and you only get a few minutes of time to shoot with one reel. It's difficult to do. Then it needs to be screened the same way. With a print that's about 2 meters in diameter. A screen that would cost a fortune to install with a limited number of seats. So IMAX started building and branding theaters that were IMAX certified but really where just old theaters with the screen enlarged a bit. No where close to as large, as you said in the video. Than films started being marketed as being screened in IMAX despite the film having absolutely no IMAX cameras on set. When IMAX digital cameras where introduced it was a marginal improvement but didn't offer a sensor with the equivalent aspect ratio of the 70mm film. Not to mention being significantly smaller. Really all that happens now with most IMAX films is they shoot it, crop it for its wide release, and uncrop it for IMAX. But the actual aspect ratio of that uncropped film is basically the same as Super 35. Or 16:9 if you prefer. Its not that special compared to a normal screening. Especially when you see it on IMAX's terrible old digital projectors, which is what most theaters have. I love IMAX and I think making an experience the likes of Dunkirk and the dark knight is what the movie industry needs to keep theaters open. But if they want to do that they need to make IMAX more special. The theaters need to be in a proper IMAX aspect ratio. They need to be either film, or the new laser projectors IMAX has made. I've seen them and they look good, very bright, not quite as sharp as film but much better than the old projectors. And finally IMAX needs to make a proper IMAX digital camera. No one besides Christopher Nolan is crazy enough to use there film cameras for a whole shoot. But a relatively compact digital camera without the hassle of film would be very appealing. It will still be a hard sell to studios but it's what the format needs to do to remain special. Every film you see in IMAX should fill that entire IMAX screen, be bright, loud, clear and completely surround you with images and sound.
It's a point I didn't really have time to touch on, but I agree that if the 'Filmed in IMAX' brand catches on and more and more 'LieMAX' cinemas start opening and showing them, then I fear it will go a similar way to 3D. Watering down the experience to make it cheaper to make as a film-maker and easier for theatres to host a below-quality screen will start diluting the IMAX brand like 3D. Hopefully enough big names like Nolan can help prevent (or at least delay) that from happening...
They've already done the best they can do with the cameras Marvel uses all the time now, that's pretty much the best we can expect. What's funny with this argument is yea, old school imax back in the day felt a lot more special, but was also way less relevant due to their limited locations. Nowadays the imax brand is doing better and is way bigger than its ever been because of the compromises they've made in their expansions. All these Marvel movies for example would've just been shot regularly if not, cause there's no way they would've been like Chris Nolan.
@@Alex_Logan22 Yet what you pay up for most of the time is … a similar-sized screen, an aspect ratio more like my boring TV at home, and a slightly brighter or sharper picture than normal? Maybe, if you’re lucky? I saw Dune in “IMAX with Laser” (man these guys suck at branding) and I loved it, but then I saw it at home on HBO Max, sitting very close to my big TV, and loved it. Ironically the thing I really missed from the theater had nothing to do with the picture, it was the sound.
So, for a slight improvement in quality that the majority of viewers won't notice, the majority of _that_ majority being literally incapable of noticing, producers have to pay how much, exactly? Two times, three times, five times, ten times... need I go on? It wouldn't be worth it if everyone on the planet had eyes that could see the difference, _why would anyone bother when the majority of viewers _*_literally can't?!_*
Thank you for this. I have to drive 45 km from my home to the IMAX theater closest to me, the gas is ridiculously expensive nowadays in Brazil, parking is not cheap, but the thrill to watch a movie in that particular theater is absolutely worth it. Some friends don’t understand my obsession with IMAX - cause they never seen a movie there before. And the ones that accompany me from time to time say they never wanna watch movies in another theater. IMAX is life. IMAX is love.
I love imax, but my experience with my local true imax theater in San Francisco is that (even if they had to buy their tickets months before) people seem to think that the price entitles them to talk during the film, check their phone, take pictures of the screen. I find the theater going experience only angers me now. I haven’t been in several years. I am however considering seeing Dune 2 in imax. I missed the first one. I really dislike that they don’t release the imax version for home release.
One slight clarification, that might've already been pointed out, but the airport sequence in Captain America: Civil War is the first use of the IMAX certified camera. Avenges: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame were both shot with the same camera in their entirety -- Arri Alexa 65.
Spot on - that was why I used the brief clip from Civil War at 08:23 before pointing out that Endgame was the first movie shot entirely with those cameras (I was focusing that section on 70mm IMAX-shot films, but wanted to introduce Marvel to briefly address the use of digital Filmed In IMAX cameras like the Arri Alexa).
Personaly IMAX 3D is the best shit i ever experience its the true meaning of immersive experience it make me ignore every bit of "The Eternal" sreenwriting or even the chracter dev but just feeling like a little kid exploring a ride in disneyland.
I was blessed to see Jurassic Park for the first time in 3D at my local theater for its 30th anniversary, and I now know how audiences must have felt seeing Star Wars for the first time. 😮 While it wasn't IMAX, I felt that the 3D conversion was tastefully done and really improved the jump-scare moments. without being cheesy or overdone.
As I said in the pinned comment, I think 3D on the whole works better for animated movies. Tintin is so much fun (and will feature heavily in my next video - stay tuned!)
Cool analisys. I'm a very IMAX fan since Avatar. Have seen Dune 2 times in IMAX, and it was the best cinema experience of my life ! I'm so sad that the IMAX shots are absent from the Dune blu-ray...
IMAX is great. No doubt about that. But there is more to it. There are basically two IMAXes - digital and analog. And the 70mm analog IMAX is simply glorious. That's what Penguin man talks about in the video. Unfortunately not many can experience that. First of all there are few theaters that offer 70mm screenings. Only 2 in Europe (in London and Prague). Then there are basically only two directors utilizing the grandioseness of 70mm IMAX - Nolan and Tarantino. For example, Dunkirk is an exceptional and unrepeatable experience in 70mm. You can't get closer to being in a battle unless you are in a real one.
right, i just paused this topic at 3:03 mark to say this... from my point of view, standard 3D, or Real D 3D, sucks for live-action flicks. yes, years ago they were the next evolution in cinema, but thigs change. i saw Avatar in 3D & wasn't that into in. then it was re-released in IMAX AX 3D.... that sold me on the IMAX experience. 3D works well for animation but for live-action, i live for IMAX & IMAX 3D!
I generally agree with what you said about IMAX. Recently however, even the greats like Christopher Nolan and Deni Villeneuve havent been using it perfectly. I saw both Tenet and Dune in IMAX, and both of them suffered from one big thing. Constant changing aspect ratios! Sure, there are sequences in both movies that fill the screen for long periods of time and are incredible. (I dont mond those.) But in between those segments are random full frame IMAX shots that then immediately go back to regular widescreen. This sometimes even happens multiple times during a scene and it shows how the film makers actually havent planned properly for the IMAX format. They just shoot it and place it randomly for no reason. It gets distracting. Funny enough, No time to die only did this once, and the restnof the imax scenes were long and unchanging.
Well, im a big lover of 3D and the perfect way to get fully immersed is in fact a native Imax 3D movie. Like Avatar : the way of water or Transformers 5 : The last knight. While Dune 1 and 2 were an absolute amazing experience ... it could benefit from 3D particularly in this superior format cause it adds the absolute finishing touch to mind-blowing cinema without the headache issues of regular 3D.
The one thing I still can't stand though how my own home theater sells these grand movies far better than my local IMAXs can. The projectors are so washed out and the sound quality is just flacid. I'm in Vancouver BC, one of the filmmaking capitals of the world, and there's basically no good theater around here unless I ferry to Victoria BC or drive down to Seattle ;/
two questions: 1. imax cameras can be digital or analog, right? 2. is a movie that was not shot in imax still better in an imax cinema? great video by the way.
It's crazy to me that you put that specific Harry Potter movie in @ 3:00, because I remember seeing it in 3D in theaters as a kid and thinking: "these characters look like cardboard cutouts" and that the depth of the 3D just wasn't right.
The only theater near me that has a real IMAX screen closed down during the Pandemic. Thankfully, I got to see Endgame there before that happened, but it sucks that I'd need to drive an hour away to see a real IMAX movie now.
I didn't know your channel, and UA-cam recommended this to me, probably because I loved this movie and watched most of the stuff other people said lol. Amazing content, I subscribed and will checkout other videos of yours when time allows.
I'm eagerly waiting for Avatar 2, I missed watching it on big screen as I was kid back then. Only for that money, I made my dad to buy 3D sony tv (which I used very little now for 3D). Now I will watch it in IMAX at any cost.
being disabled i won't ever experience imax or theater 3D. So i opted instead for 2nd best in a jvc 47" 3D tv. Avatar was an experience not to be believed.
Yeah well the issue is I couldn’t. No imax in Brisbane and the borders were closed. Was so pissed off. Still loved the movie but you could tell it was cropped down. It was distracting at times. There’d be a giant worm or a ship that was half cut out of frame.
I'm a fan of Nolan's work. (Much of it anyway.) But he's dead wrong on this issue. A GOOD 3D presentation (meaning active shutter glasses) is orders-of-magnitude more involving for the viewer than any 2D presentation could ever hope to be. 2D is just...watching a movie. Good 3D is like looking through a window into another world. And isn't that why we watch movies, to lose ourselves in the story?
Was pretty disappointed that the 4k Blu ray for Dune didn't bother to maintain the full screen IMAX shots and instead uses ultra wide aspect ratios for the whole runtime.
I'm gonna level with you chief I have no idea what you are saying. I'm no way near an IMAX but I have never even considered the size of the cinema. I don't even regard the cinema as the better experience. The only reason I go to the cinema is cause I want to see a new movie, if it releases for my TV I'll just watch it there, I don't get it. You said your statements with such confidence I wonder if I'm the one that's off.
Fair enough. There's not really much more I can add than what I covered in the video. All I would say is if you find yourself in a city that has a proper IMAX screen and there is a new IMAX movie out like a Mission Impossible or Nolan movie, then try and go see it in IMAX and see how it compares to a standard cinema. Try and get a seat as close to the centre of the screen as possible, ideally the middle row of the theatre too.
I think IMax is the best way, but in my opinion, VR is the second best. Any size screen, (if you have good headphones) amazing audio, and no distractions. Theaters are obviously the best, but if that movie is gone and not in theaters any more, VR is the best substitute.
I still don’t regret driving an hour to see Dune in an IMAX theater. It was so worth it! Also, I’ve always been under the impression that Avatar saved IMAX. My family went to go see it in IMAX 3D and my Dad still talks about how good the 3D (I was a little kid so I don’t remember much of it). But point is: the stock for IMAX skyrocketed pretty soon after Avatar opened. So while it was revolutionary for 3D, it also gave life support for IMAX which had been on the brink of death before that. Of course, otherwise I feel like Nolan has been really generating interest in IMAX as said in the video.
Definitely worth the trip. I actually had a segment in this video that I cut arguing that IMAX was really what made Avatar but people thought it was the 3D because of how it was marketed. There were heaps of IMAX sales for Avatar, and after The Dark Knight audiences were still a bit unused to seeing movies on that scale.
What good is the best possible cinema with the best possible sound and screen when only a handful of best possible seats allow viewers to experience the films as intended. Try sitting off to the sides or in the lower or upper third and you will only have a distorted or distracting view.
2 роки тому
Best case: Wearing the most comfortable glasses etc => You forget you are watching a 3D movie after a few minutes. Wrst case: The glasses don't fit well, they are dirty (sometimes on top of the regular glasses), you get ghosting (starfields in movies with high contrast for example) .. etc. Unless a movie actually rewards the viewer by being deep 3D and uses that effect well its just not worth it.
IMAX gives you more stuff to look at plus a badass sound system; 3D makes you put on glasses to look at either a discolored or blurry version of the movie you're trying to get absorbed in. I remember going to a small local theater that *only* played the big movies in 3D. I was so mad when I learned I had to buy a dumbass pair of glasses with my ticket plus soda to Rogue One because the theater owner thought it was still 2009 & that audiences gave a damn about 3D. I kept those stupid glasses for the other movies they only played in 3D for a year or so before the manager seemed to get the idea & actually offered ppl to see these movies the regular way.
I love 3D films. In fact I may even go see a 3D film I wouldn't normally go see had it only been in 2D. IMAX 3D is the best. I wish all movies were filmed and presented in 3D. The added immersion and feeling of depth that comes with a 3D eperience is incredible and adds so much to the movie going experience. I'm currently looking for a good UST projector and will not buy one unless it supports 3D. When Avatar 2 comes out, people will once again be shown the power of 3D. I saw both Interstellar and Tenet in IMAX and boy, were they both horrible experiences. Tenet was possibly the worst cinematic experience I have ever endured. Had it been in 3D, I probably would have started bleeding from my ears and ended up in hospital.
Infinity War was actually the first movie to be shot completely with IMAX cameras, not End Game. Also, though NTTD was shot with IMAX film cameras, it was not distributed on IMAX film. Hence only dual laser IMAX venues got the 1.43:1 version of the movie (same with Nope). Dune was the first 1.43:1 IMAX movie shot digitally. I am surprised you talked about this whole Dume thing without once mentioning the larger than life IMAX 1.43:1 IMAX ratio (in GT dual laser venues).
Weirdly enough, 3d was more accessible than imax. More theatres use to show 3d while imax needed a screen specifically designed for it. Emphasis on was cause I couldn't find any showing for a 3d showing. Not even spidey verse in the cinema I know had it before
I personally have chosen to watch movies in 3D over IMAX this year since IMAX stopped offering 3D here in the states, saw Dune in 3D twice, IMAX is cool but imo 3D is the experience IMAX themselves are diluting their brand when they introduced the "certified IMAX cameras" "filmed for IMAX" now there's way too many formats for them than with 3D, you got the certified IMAX cameras like Dune and the MCU movies, you got the digital IMAX camera from Transformers AoE/TLK (IMAX 3D), Sully, and Infinity War/Endgame, mission impossible fallout and then you get the 15perf 70mm IMAX with Nolan and NTTD That imo is way worse because you don't know what's imax or what isn't and IMAX knows this since now they can just fill their 1.90:1 screen call full screen IMAX and call it a day
Totally agree IMAX risks going the same way as 3D if the 'Filmed in IMAX" cameras become more widespread, and the LieMax cinemas catch on. People want the experience, and diluting it will not work out in the long run.
A man in the picture here shown he wear the 3d glasses of 80th no wonder why imax beat 3D.He should wear the 3D glasses introduced by James Cameron in Avatar 1, the 3D was awesome and fantastic indeed!
*small disclaimer* On the whole, I think 3D works best for animated movies (think Pixar and Into the Spiderverse) as opposed to live action. I don’t really address that in the video, which is focused on live action films shot on real cameras. Please feel free to debate this in the comments, or yell at me on Twitter: twitter.com/PentexP
Yep definitely, the best 3D cinema experiences I had were both primarily animated (Tron Legacy and Tintin)
Was there any well made live action stereoscopic movie? I don't count Avatar, despite having by far the best 3D and really requiring it to make it's world believable (looks like a game in 2D); it's to a large part an animated movie and the live action parts have compositing issues.
@@thoreberlin
Tron Legacy, Resident Evil AfterLife, Amazing Spiderman 1, Dr. Strange, Ready Player One, Life of Pi, Step Up 3D, Pacific Rim. Those just the top of my head.
man, i wish there were less of Liemax displays out there :(
Yes, Up was one of the best 3D experiences I had. When you consider the "flat" look of the first third of the film, it's utterly transformed once the house takes off we can feel the glorious height. It's tied in with a key emotional beat in the film, so it's not functioning in a gimmicky way.
With the rising popularity of IMAX discussion, there’s also the increase in TV screen size and resolution to consider. The gap between the home experience and theater experience is getting narrower. So I agree that if you’re going to try to get a truly non-home theater experience, IMAX is the way to go (if you have access to one)
Also, I remember seeing 3D movies after Avatar and the appeal sliding away. So the brand dilution argument is on point.
I disagree…a theater (IMAX) experience is vastly different from what you get at home…
I think it will never be the same unless you build a cinema in your home…
I believe that Live Music Concert, Theater, etc… are experiences that aren’t replicable at home.
@@oniriscope I don’t think you read my entire comment? You repeated my point
@@whitneykelley3580 oh my bad! My bad… just re-read it (read too fast the first time).
watching 4k in a theatre is better than watching 4k in your tv at home. Sound systems are also better.(im taking about dolby and imax).
@@oniriscope i have a projector screen "larger" that imax when you count viewing distance and an atmos audio setup in 46 sq m (500 sq f) studio apartment it is much easier and cheaper than you think
Worked on over 30 films converting them from 2D to 3D. There are some things that 3D cameras do well, and there are a metric truck ton of things that it just does not handle. There are a rack of movies I am not legally allowed to admit were actually converted, but they were big box office titles that sold by saying they were "shot in 3D", when in reality we converted half of it to fix all of the mistakes that occur with 3D cameras. Specifically, the way light doesn't enter both lenses consistently or equal to each other. So you end up with this really weird hazy glowy image in one eye and a darker crisp image in another. BUT, these movies were praised for their 3D, so we like to silently smile and sit back while critics talk all this good shit about 3D conversions without knowing it. :)
Anti3D came from constant conditioning by articles, old directors who already didn't like digital cinema or vfx and the film snobs who don't like change. The format is great, immersive, fun but I guess to an amateur filmmaker it might add more obstacles in their way to breaking into the industry. So there's an allure to cling onto 100 year old tech because it's non threatening.
So well said Penguin man. I had to see Dune on Vue Xtreme as they had stopped showing it in iMax, but it still blew me away. I saw Gravity at the London Waterloo and it was like being in space. Was disappointed with Interstellar there, which actually got trumped by seeing it again at the Royal Albert Hall with a live orchestra and debate with Nolan before about the film. Next level! It's all about experience!
Live orchestras are fantastic for movies. Really want to see LOTR with one.
Dune has been showing in IMAX at Cineworld, Leicester Square recently, certainly as of 22 Jan.
That Interstellar thing sounds absolutely incredible, & I'm not even a huge fan of that movie (it's good; don't get mad). It really is about the experience. I'm in charge of two volunteers at work, & one of them said a couple months ago they're never going to a movie theater again; I said, "You're out of your mind, homie," lol
About dealing with "other people" during a screening: After seeing Dune in 2D in my home town on a 16x8 m screen I was impressed and got lucky: The nearest IMAX decided to show it again 6 weeks later on their 27x22m screen and in the OV! Besides the film being an totally awesome experience in this setting, I will remember the screening for 2 things: Decpite it being the pandemic and everybody had to be vaccinated and bring a recent covid test in addition, the cinema was packed! And what was even more amazing: Everybody got absolutely quite as soon as the movie started and stayed silent until the end of the runtime! So yes: IMAX is just such a great experience!
You took the cl0t sh0t just to see a movie BRAHAHAHAHAHAHA what an idi0t!
@7.29 the intro to Dark Knight as a "trailer" on the Imax screen is still to this day probably the best movie going experience I've ever had. I don't remember the movie I was watching, but I just remember everyone in the cinema being completely enthralled with the scene. Everything about it is just cinematic perfection and was hightened by the fact that nobody in the theater had any idea it was coming.
I remember it so vividly. It made me wonder why more movies don't just play an entire scene as a trailer instead of making something bespoke. I just had to know what happened next!
@@PentexProductions - They did the same with the prologue for Tenet which was shown along with other trailers before some movies.
New Jurassic World did it for Fast and Furious shows. It confused the guy on my left to thinking he went into the wrong auditorium.
The first IMAX film i ever saw was ghost protocol, and the trailer to that film was the plane hijacking in dark knight rises. Between that and the Burj khalifa scene in GP, I almost shat my pants. One of the scariest and most awe-inspiring cinematic experiences I've ever had.
I saw the prologue of Tenet in an IMAX theatre before the actual film (Star Wars). It was breathtaking!
I worked for IMAX for a few years, in fact see my avatar is my racing helmet in front of our in-house theater. It was really a great place to work with people that were passionate about movies. See movies in our theater before they came out to the general public sometimes was absolutely mind-blowing. I actually saw movies in the theaters that I've already seen in the office because of the impact it made
It is important to note that while being 9 times larger than the 35mm standard film, the "effective resolution" is greatly dependent on the fineness of the celluloid film's grain and the projector being used to project the final film.
Because many projectors are now digital, these films end up getting scanned digitally for colour and editing work so the cinema delivery might be anywhere from 2k, 4k, 8k or whatever the projector is capable of.
there aren't any 8k projectors, only TVs
Lucky enough to live 10 minutes from the biggest IMAX cinema in Australia and take full advantage of that. Great video!
The one in Sydney was the biggest in the world until the German one opened recently! A huge screen I hope to catch a movie on one day.
If only Sydney’s Imax was open in time for Dune…at least it’ll be open in time for the sequel.
@@PentexProductionsA million years too late to this comment, but Melbourne is superior to Sydney now in probably every way. Sydney’s new IMAX is smaller and doesn’t have a film projector. Melbourne is also operated independently as part of the museum complex rather than run by a chain like Event, so they have a tendency to play more documentaries and more older films, including lots of actual literal physical films. Also to my knowledge Melbourne also actually has the largest 1.43:1 screen in the world. Imo Germany having the largest IMAX screen doesn’t count if you can’t watch movies in full IMAX frame.
I thought the largest IMAX screen was in melbourne, australia, not Germany. Strange how my local imax still calls itself the worlds largest screen.
I knew an Aussie would pick me up on this - you are correct that Melbourne was the largest until very recently. The German one opened only a few months ago, and I only discovered that when researching this video: www.globalconstructionreview.com/germany-to-open-worlds-biggest-imax-screen-in-time-for-latest-bond-movie/
@largechips you’re still partially correct. Melbourne still has the largest full frame IMAX ie 1.43:1. So still the biggest screen in the world for watching any full frame IMAX movie like The Dark Knight or Dune Part 2, but for 1.90:1 movies like Avengers Infinity War, Germany has the biggest screen.
Generally agree with a few quibbles. I was lucky enough to see "Dunkirk" in true Imax at Universal City and it was an absolutely immersive experience - so much so I've never seen it again because I don't want to see a lesser version, but I also saw Cameron's Titanic doc "Ghosts of the Abyss" in 3D Imax at the same theater and that was amazing as well and really gave you the feeling of being at the wreck. Imax 3D on a true Imax screen is the ultimate movie experience. Lymax is still a step up from regular screens because the sound and picture is generally better. It's sad that most people just don't get to see true 3D or true Imax movies. You might also do a video about High Frame Rate. Got to see the first "Hobbit" in HFR and it was much clearer than regular frame rate but I can understand why people want the more "cinematic" look. 3D also requires much more care to shoot. I wrote most of the 3D issue of Cinefantastique back in the day so spent a lot of time with people explaining how difficult it was to do properly from designing the shot to gettiing the lenses properly aligned to making sure the projection increases the brightness to compensate for polarized lenses. One last comment for fun. Oddly enough, one of the best old 3D movies I've ever seen is the much-derided "Robot Monster." I got to see a special theatrical screening of it at a 3D festival in Los Angeles and although it's still an eye-rollingly bad movie, I was very surprised that technically, the black and white 3D photography was great. A lot of the movie was shot in foothills around Los Angeles and both the foreground and distant background were very sharp and being familiar with the areas, I had no problems matching up the experience of being there in person with what I was watching on the screen. I don't remember who shot it, but whoever did knew what the hell they were doing. A true unsung hero...
Great comment, and I mostly agree. I didn't articulate it properly in the video, but the point I was trying to make was that 3D done properly by a skilled film-maker using it with creative intent is a genuinely unique cinematic experience - especially for things like Ghosts of the Abyss or Caves of Forgotten Dreams. The issue with quick-and-dirty and widespread post-conversion is that general audiences had know way of knowing what was intentional and what was just a quick cash grab, and the brand diluted as a result, to the detriment of film-makers who knew how to use 3D properly. You also touched on a whole section of the video I cut which is basically that most conventional theatres have industry standards for projector settings, which film-makers work to knowing their work will be displayed consistently across venues. 3D films do not have those standards, hence many theatres not adjusting their projectors properly for the polarisation levels of the 3D captured by the film-maker. This is one of the reasons IMAX 3D is a better experience - the theatres are usually set up to display the image with the correct settings.
@@PentexProductions Can't disagree. Post-conversion is definitely problematic. I went to the press screening of "Wrath of the Titans," at the Grauman's Chinese no less, so the tech requirements were good, but my bud and I walked out going "Uhhhhh, didn't anyone look at this before they showed it to us?" I think the "Let me out of this picture" floating hair will go down in 3D infamy. Pity, because I really love 3D and am sorry it's largely faceplanted (IN 3D!!!) again. Now do HFR. Great technology if they can ever figure out what to do with it...
Steve yedlin (ASC) did a great breakdown of all different camera resolutions and formats and found that IMAX film has less perceived resolution than an arri 65 due to film having artifacts such as halation - so yes, IMAX is high Res (11k not 12) but other factors affect sharpness more than just pure film or digital pixel size. 35mm film is technically 6k, but it doesn't look close to as sharp as a 2.5k arri sxt
My best cinematic experience (also my first) was seeing the Lowell Thomas travelogue "Seven Wonders of the World" in Cinerama. I was 8 years old and excited with this experience of seeing this film with the three projectors and the 7 channel surround sound. I wasn't lucky enough to see "How the West was Won" or the "Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm" in that format, but It was exciting to see at least this film in Cinerama.
Sounds amazing! I am really hoping I get the chance to see Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm sometime this year (it's 60th anniversary).
Nice video, but it was a real missed opportunity when you mentioned the brand dilution of 3D to talk about how diluted IMAX is becoming with "fake" IMAX screens everywhere and the majority of the movies being shown in IMAX not actually filmed in IMAX, just like how the majority of 3D movies shown in the last couple decades were not actually filmed in 3D.
I'm lucky to have a full 4K laser IMAX screen in my city and the movies on it are stunning (when filmed in IMAX and shown in 4:3), but there are also a few other "fake" IMAX screens in the area that pale in comparison to it but charge the same fee.
I agree, and it may be something I cover in the future. IAMX risks going the same way as 3D if it waters down the quality to try and get more views. Might work in the short term, but it's not a long term plan. The IMAX brand needs to stay with filmmakers who know how to use it.
the digital ones *are* the fake imax screens.
Agree with pretty much everything said here. Avatar was an event in 3d, most other films aren't enhanced by it and some are worsened (Clash of the Titans was almost unwatchable). As home cinema expands, IMAX will always offer the most standout experience, completely differentiating itself from watching movies at home.
This was actually really good. Thank you for your insights. Now if only we could get the IMAX experience into our dedicated home theathers...
You can (at a price). There’s no reason not to display IMAX movies at their correct aspect ratio of 1.90:1 on a 16:9 television. Tho to get anything close to the IMAX “experience” you need a pretty big TV - 77” or over for sure. But more interestingly, the native aspect ratio and resolution of JVC’s D-ILA projectors is not 16:9 like a television, but 17:9, 4096 x 2160, which is the same as a 4K digital cinema projector and also the aspect ratio for IMAX Digital. All you do (assuming you have the cash!) is make or buy a 1.90:1 projection screen, get the viewing distance correct and you basically have the IMAX viewing experience at home. The sticking point is that some blu-ray and 4K Blu-ray releases of movies filmed for IMAX are matted to the traditional ‘scope movie aspect ratio of 2.39:1, as they would have been shown in non-IMAX theatres. That means they’re getting the top and bottom of the frame cropped off. Often that’s ok when nothing crucial was placed in that part of the frame, but things like Infinity War and Endgame in particular were very obviously framed for 1.90:1 and really suffer when cropped to 2.39:1. Hopefully this will shake out over time and “filmed for IMAX” movies will start to get home releases in their proper aspect ratio. Disc re-releases of Infinity War and Endgame in IMAX ratio would be nice tho. IMAX on Disney+ is a start, but committed fans and collectors of these movies really want them on 4K Blu-ray.
lmao it would be expensive as hell, heck even normal home theatre set ups are expensive
have you seen Life of Pi? In my opinion it is the best 3D movie ever(and still is), it showcases how a great 3d movie could have done right. The 3d effect really enhanced the immersiveness on top of the spectacular color and lighting that it already has. The 3D effect does make a lot of difference. But if the movie does not have great color or lighting then it won't have that mach of impact. The camera angle and the shot continuity are also important to build up the immersiveness. I think 3d isn't easy to master, but it will be the last piece of puzzle to create the ultimate visual immersiveness. And of course 4DX+3D will be even greater.
I didn't see it in 3D, but can absolutely see how it'd work for the format. I fully acknowledge some movies are well suited to 3D - my point is more that because so many films were (badly or cheaply) converted to 3D in such a short period in the early 2010s, they drowned out the talented filmmakers who were actually using it properly in movies like Life of Pi, so people didn't realise that it could actually be used well in the right hands.
Life of Pi was the only live action 3D movie that didn't give me a headache. It was incredibly well mastered. (And it made me cry several times 🙁)
i second that. Aaand Prometheus that was pretty awesome in 3D.
Interesting video with some good points. You don't have to look far to find strong animosity towards 3D (see vitriolic comments below...), but there are a lot of people who still appreciate and love what it can do to enhance a film.
I do take some issue with a few points here: Firstly, post-converted 3D is often *way* better than natively shot 3D (for example I defy anyone with functioning binocular vision to tell me the 3D in Tron Legacy is better than in, say, Aquaman). Secondly, Nolan, for the great films he's made, can be a colossal buffoon: The notion that stereo 3D is a waste of time because it only accounts for "5%" of depth information is as ridiculous as saying that multi-channel sound is a waste of time because you can hear all the same sounds in mono. (Come to think of it, I think he still sticks to 5.1 rather than 3D audio: Anyone want to defend that..?) He's not a 3D fan, I get it, but if Scorcese can make a 3D masterpiece (he can, and he did), then I'm afraid Chris "Tim-Nice-But-Dim" Nolan's opinion on the subject doesn't count for much as far as I'm concerned.
The Walk, Hugo, The Life Of Pi, TS Spivet, Gravity: All classic 3D films from the modern era, massively enhanced by the format. It's not just kids' animations and comic book films, some serious film makers who understand 3D have worked wonders with it. And no gimmicky variable aspect ratio in them (well, a tiny bit in Life of Pi - but that was to have fun with the 3D).
The biggest problem with Imax movies is that the art of film composition takes a massive hit because of it: An Imax film has to work in three different shapes (two different Imax shaped screens - which is ludicrous enough - as well as 2.39:1), so it's shot "safe" for all of them. And that's no way to make a movie...
All good points, and well made. I agree that there are many movies that benefitted from 3D - native or post converted. As I said in the pinned comment too, I think it generally works well for animated movies too.
I guess my argument was the brand dilution one. After seeing a few bad post conversions in a cinema not properly equipped to show 3D properly (dark screen from the polarisation, etc), audiences would have no way of knowing that the films you listed would be any different - even though they were intentionally made by the film-makers to use 3D to tell a better story.
So it's less about the format itself, and more about how it's overuse in a short space of time by a lot of people who didn't know how to make the most of it resulted in the format losing much of it's appeal to general audiences - hence the box office numbers.
I don't say it in the video but I think IMAX risks going the same way with the more accessible but lower quality 'Filmed In IMAX' cameras. Anyway, thanks for watching and the thoughtful comment.
@@PentexProductions Absolutely true. Bad post-conversions (as well as weak native 3D) really turned people off: I always thought that when someone writes the book, "Why 3D Failed. Again", one of the chapters should be called "Clash of the Titans." THX succumbed to brand dilution, and I'm sure Dolby Atmos is dancing with danger (Atmos branded *soundbars* is stretching it; I even have a Dolby Atmos branded *tablet*...) If IMAX branding is put on a TV it'll be a bad sign! Keep up the great work, cheers.
@@itsluek I agree that what makes for "good" 3D is subjective. And "strong" 3D isn't by default "good" 3D. However, whether a film's 3D is strong or weak is an objective fact, and many post-converted films have stronger 3D than many natively shot ones. To a lot of people (myself frequently included), that automatically makes their 3D more appealing
Totally agree about Titanic (not only post-converted, but also obviously shot with zero consideration of how well it would later convert). Jurassic Park's in the same boat (so to speak). And both of those were wrangled into 3D before the post conversion process got *really* good. The later high quality post conversions have been able to create totally convincing depth *and* dimension: Some of the most solidly sculpted and three dimensional faces I've seen have been in post-converted rather than native films. Not only that, but they can put scenes into 3D in a way that a stereo camera rig couldn't possibly do. I'm not for a moment saying "post-conversion is better", just that some post-converted films have better (and not just stronger) 3D than some natively shot ones. And it was unimpressive native ones, as much as badly post-converted ones, that helped to turn people off from 3D this time around.
A couple you mention, Hugo and TS Spivet are, in my opinion, two of the best 3D films ever made (stereo on both by Demetri Portelli, coincidentally or not). But Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was shot with an almost constantly tiny interaxial and, as a result, it's a great example of a native 3D movie from the modern era where they were conservative with their implementation of 3D to the point at which I don't know why they bothered. (Actually, I think I do: The studio's accountants wanted the receipts from a 3D release...). Matt Reeves has been quoted as saying (I'm slightly paraphrasing) that he wanted to achieve a "2D aesthetic"! (I would have very happily used that one in my original comparison: I say Aquaman's 3D is much, much better than DOTPOTA's - and it's not just stronger, but it does more to support the story-telling.)
I find Tron Legacy fascinating: It's frequently been cited as one of the great 3D movies. Even today there are people who rave about it. The 3D in the film is demonstrably very weak and extremely unimpressive. So why so much love for it? Sadly, I think, it's an example that totally supports Nolan's notion that 95% of depth information comes from 2D depth cues: People are bamboozled by its pretty "3D" computer graphics (and possibly the expanded IMAX ratio...) and interpret them as good 3D. From a purely stereoscopic point of view though, its 3D is incredibly poor.
@@3D_Blu-ray_Bunker 3d all the way mate.
I live in Leonberg (where the biggest imax screen opened just a few months ago) and oh boiiii dune was the best movie I've ever saw in my live. That cinema just elevated the experience to another lever you can't describe it.
I bet it was awesome!
Fascinating...
I saw Dune four times in premium seats - twice in IMAX (well, LIMAX), twice in 3D (albeit with the additional thrill of D-box rattling and rumbling). Neither was ideal: both looked almost blurry at times (even at times when it wasn't supposed to) and the 3D glasses made an already dark movie even darker.
I presume the full IMAX treatment would have been much better, but I don't live close enough to a true IMAX venue that actually showed Dune to judge for myself...
I have since seen Dune on 4K (with HDR) at home and while it wasn't ideal either (my TV screen is too small for that and not IMAX-ratio, of course), it was arguably clearer than in the cinema (especially for the darker scenes), had a more natural dynamic range for human eyes and made me feel more like I was in the same space as the actors.
I suspect the scope for seeing (and then rewatching at home) Dune-like IMAX spectacle/event films is always going to be much more limited than for more "small screen"-friendly fare, if only because of how much more expensive IMAX cinemas (and their eventual home-cinema counterparts) are or will prove to be. My hope is that Dune and other films shot with a lot of IMAX-ratio scenes will soon be available for 4K or 8K projection on big(-ish) screens at home since I doubt TV manufacturers will ever produce affordable IMAX-ratio TVs given the limited size of the market...
It's a shame there isn't more of an effort to standardise the projection settings in commercial theatres so that audiences get a consistent experience. I actually cut a whole section of this video that talked about that also being a reason 3D declined in popularity - a lot of cinemas simply didn't know how to set up their projectors and theatres to properly display the films, which is one of the reasons viewers often complained about how dark they were. Similar issue is facing some LieMAX screens sadly.
Just saw avatar 2 in imax 3d & it was the best movie experience I ever had, 3d isn't a gimmick it wasn't utilized properly.
I was at university when The Dark Knight Rises was coming out and I managed to bag a few tickets to a preview (Bain plane sequence) and it was my first IMAX experience and was hosted at the Bradford National Science and Film Museum, UK which boasts a 60ft IMAX screen the viewing experience was phenomenal.
No one made noise we were just sucked into the scene from the moment that jeep appeared onscreen. I still have my event exclusive Bain t-shirt from that viewing and it certainly won me over to IMAX.
I think the only 3d films I watch are when I splurge and get DBOX (which is moving chairs which tilt, vibrate and lean to the action). I save that experience for Star Wars usually or films I feel that will take advantage of it with SW for instance the tilting seats work well for space combat. The best experience of DBOX I've had was my second date with my girlfriend which was Mad Max Fury Road and I've never had a cinema experience match that - the chairs didn't stop the whole time it was so immersive. But as a title that was post converted to 3d that experience was 100% immersive because of the DBOX and not the 3d.
It's crazy how a truly great cinema experience can stay in your head like that. These sound amazing!
Yes! Fury Road in 3D/Dbox is hands down one of the best cinematic experiences I've ever had, easy. Maybe its cause I'm skinny so the seats work better on me (some heavier people have compared it to a massage lol) but I was IN that movie completely as if I was taking part in all the car action. It was like a really long theme park ride and it was glorious. I still think about potentially getting a home Dbox seat one day just for that movie.
The only thing that can get me back to movie theaters is that crazy dome being built in Vegas.
Other than that, regardless of how big a movie theater screen is unless it actually looks more detailed than my home TV, then I am not going.
Never seen a movie in IMAX but it's definitely a bucket list thing. We only have a couple in Sweden, most of them in Stockholm. If I'm ever visiting for a weekend or more, I'll try to prioritize that.
It's videos like this that are the reason me and my entire family are going to see avatar 2 in imax on Christmas Eve and we've bought all the top row seats. It's gonna be a special night! I've waited 13 years for this film I can't wait
I caught it opening weekend, it's definitely a movie worth the IMAX experience. Enjoy!
The only 3d I've really liked was when a few of the older Disney movies were re-released (very fascinating to see the different layers of animation), and Jurassic Park in IMAX 3d, which worked surprisingly well for a movie not made for either format.
I've seen Dune on different occasions, different formats: regular IMAX, 3D IMAX, 50 inch TV and finally 17 inch laptop screen. Each time the screen got smaller, I liked the movie better. I think that as a movie of cosmic proportions, it shows too much small objects covering the whole screen, like faces, detailed shots of IDK crysknife and similar small objects. There's no space for your eyes to rest. I still love the movie, but for me, the main advantage of going to see it in cinema was the sound.
3D can be a detriment to the viewing experience. IMAX is always a plus.
When you're sat watching a "3D" version you get that 3D pop in the first 20 minutes. Then it wears off and you don't even know you're watching 3D. The depth disapears. With IMAX you always know you're watching IMAX, as well as the sound system that goes with it. I watched Avatar and it wore off, and that was the benchmark. The ultimate of 3D movies.
I've only seen a few movies in 3D like Gravity, then at a frinds request I watched The Martian again after watching it regular. Some of the scenes were so dark(fault of the projection/cinema), you could barely see anything, and I regretted watching it in 3D. I never regret watching anything in IMAX.
I saw Blade Rinner 2049 at the Printworks IMAX, Manchester, UK, and it was an awesome experience. I still talk about it today. 3D on a small screen cost more than the Printworks IMAX for a lesser experience, and you have to watch a darkened version, with glasses on your head.
Yeah, but IMAX 3D is WAY different than RealD 3D which is shown most of the time and pretty crappy. Comparing IMAX 3D to IMAX would be a much better comparison.
The moment you realize your eye is actually always looking at a 2D image. Trippy
Well, in the cinematic wasteland that is the south part of Sweden we don't have an IMAX theater. I have to go 300 kilometers to the nearest one in Sweden. Sure I could go to Denmark but with the prices for a movie ticket these days a trip to Denmark is not something I would like to include. I have seen "Into Darkness" at a proper IMAX theater in Stockholm and that was amazing!
It's worth the trip sometimes! In New Zealand we only have one screen - I remember flying to Auckland specifically to see The Dark Knight Rises in the IMAX there.
I remember seeing Avatar opening night during the grand opening of an IMAX theater in Florida and it blew me away. Definitely a highlight of my movie-going experience. During the past couple of years I have become an avid 3D enthusiast, which is admittedly a demographic which grows smaller every day. While theaters were shuttered, I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to build a home theater during the pandemic and opted for a 3D enabled projector and now enjoy watching new releases on a 15 foot screen at home. And while I admit, many of the early 3D releases following Avatar were subpar, especially the conversions, the technology has improved by leaps and bounds. While the majority of 3D films today are conversions, they look significantly better than most of the rush-job conversions during the height of the 3D boom (2011-2014), but sadly it seems that theres no one left that cares. And while native 3D is still impressive, my personal top 5 3D films are all conversions. But, we remaining 3D diehards are holding out hope that Avatar 2 will introduce new technology (ie: 4k 3D) that will revitalize interest in the dying medium, but I certainly wont be holding my breath.
I am so sorry that you wasted fifteen bucks to see Avatar.
I like that IMAX helps push boundaries of filmmaking (but I dislike that it is shooting itself in the foot with dilution). That said, my absolute favorite way to watch movies is in VR. I can choose the size of the screen, distance, subtitles or not (I'm looking at you, Nolan), and 3D movies can really take it to the next level when watched in 3D in VR (Avatar, Into the Spider Verse - that leap of faith scene!, Gravity, even BR2049 in 3D in VR are amazing experiences!). Plus I can lie down while watching, and cry as much as I want without feeling embarrassed :)
My worst movie experience to date has been those 4D things. Absolutely horrible.
Really?? 4DX is awesome IMHO.
Now I wish that there would be a IMAX screen near me :/ Didn't actually find Dune being shown in IMAX in the very few cinemas that have it.
8:25 slight correction for a 2 year old video: Infinity War was the first fully IMAX filmed movie. I was actually quite disappointed with Endgame in IMAX because I felt they didn’t shoot for the format very well. It just felt like a normal movie where everything is shot mostly in close up. There’s are a few shots in the final battle that make good use of the frame, but they don’t last long enough to be worth it. I found Infinity War’s use of the format much better as it contained sequences with a lot more wise sweeping action.
The rare combination of being filmed for both IMAX and 3D is amazing, which I saw in Tron Legacy recently. And the only other film I can think of worth seeing in 3D is Gravity - however I don’t really think it worked as well blown up on the IMAX screen as it did in a regular sized theatre. Non-IMAX films being blown up for the format don’t work very well imo, so it frustrates me that there are still massive movies today like Furiosa and Planet of the Apes that are being marketed heavily by IMAX but not shot for the format at all. I am hoping the success of Oppenheimer and Dune Part 2 will make shooting in full frame IMAX, or at least 1.90:1, more common place for big studio films.
Love the video! I will add that with the right home setup, IMAX can even make a difference there. I have an in-home theater and on the 4K movies I've watched with IMAX scenes (The Dark Knight, Batman V Superman, etc) the difference in quality is SIGNIFICANT. Even on home TV, they look way better. It also makes me more bummed we didn't get the IMAX scenes for the 4K release of Dune. :/ That said, I think there are formats emerging that can compete with IMAX and offer experiences almost as good. For example, I watched "The Revenant" which was filmed with Arri Alexa 65 and Epic Red Dragon cameras, and it looked AMAZING.
And call me old fashioned, but even with a fancy home setup, I agree it doesn't beat seeing in a theater. Seeing movies in the theater and sharing the experience with others is special.
The problem is that on the blurays the Imax scenes are cropped for 1,77 ... the 1,43 scenes are separated bonus scenes on the 4K release of the Dark Knight Rises. If you hage a 16/9 projector or screen well a 1,43 will give you a weird feeling. I've enjoyed something like Zack Snyder's Justice League, but I've yet to see the latest Batman V Superman master that has the Imax scenes in 4/3 so it goes from 2,35 to 1,43 ...
I agree, I'm not a fan of 3D although it can work well on purely animated material. But it still generally gives me eyestrain and when used for live action, especially applied in post, can look terrible. In contrast I've been a huge fan of IMAX since watching the Dream is Alive and the other film docs in the 80's on the original massive screens. Today it's hard to find a screen or material that exploit the full 1.33:1 height, but when you do - or come close enough - it can still be spectacular. I've loved watching Nolan's IMAX films and the Mission Impossible sequences, but also enjoyed how Tron legacy used the format - and 3D - to do a Wizard of Oz transition from the outside World to inside the grid. Most recently Dune was a must see for me in IMAX, with the best option in the Uk being at the old Empire (now CineWorld) Leicester Square (I think Printworks Manchester is bigger, but having just seen Spiderman there, I thought the projection, sound and seating wasn't anywhere near as good as at the Empire, albeit 2.5 times cheaper!). Dune in IMAX was jaw dropping for me at times and I almost can't bring myself to watch it it any other format now. Disappointingly the 4k Blu Ray doesn't even expand beyond 2.35:1 to 16:9 - hopefully there'll be a 'special IMAX enhanced edition'.
I also wanted to say, don't let the plethora of other videos stop you covering the same subject if that's something you want to make a video about. When I started on UA-cam, I was the only one making videos about cameras. Today there's thousands of us all talking about the same thing which isn't ideal BUT every viewer has a favourite channel and will seek them out even if there's loads of others talking about the same thing. I really enjoy your videos, so will always watch what you've made whether it's unique or about a popular subject. Keep making what you want to make and forget how many others may be doing the same or similar.
Thanks Gordon - the Leiscester Square IMAX is an amazing theatre (I saw The Last Jedi there and it was beautiful). I totally agree on the aspect ratio - it was something I really appreciated in Tenet's scenes on the Amalfi Coast, showing the heights of the cliffs. And thanks for the support too on covering popular topics - it's nice to hear others are interested in what I have to say! Thanks for the insightful comment, as always.
Hey, it was the tagline about CinemaScope back in the 1950's: "The Modern Miracle You See Without Glasses!"
I never liked 3d in theaters I'm not sure why, but I have a mini theater with a 3d projector and it's a whole different experience watched avater for the first time in 3d was 7 when it came out and it was amazing. Experience wish more movies would have 3d real 3d
The push for 3D in cinema wasn't about 3D. Simply put it forced cinemas to move over to digital projectors. the new crop of 3D movies was ONLY available in digital formats. The change to digital was expensive and cinemas were reluctant to invest because their was no benefit to them for 2D movies . Digital is cheaper for distribution than film reels but for cinema houses it makes no difference ( except film has no DRM ... )
I totally agree with everything you say in this video - really great stuff! However, i think it’s really important to further notice the difference between regular 3D vs imax 3D. A regular 3D is just 1 image projected on to the screen whereas imax has 2 projectors actually projects 2 separate images on to the screen which really improves the 3D experience. (This is also why 3D imax glasses don’t work for regular 3D and vice versa.
I managed to put a showing of the new Spiderman in 3D imax and it actually incredible!
My best 3D experiences have been in IMAX - I plan to catch Into the Spiderverse 2 in 3D later this year - I reckon Spidey suits the format well.
Easy. People prefer a nice bright crisp big image. Not a blurry, dark 3D image that no longer is 3D once your eyes have adjusted to it after 10 mins.
In the end 3D stereoscopic restricts film making options more than it expands . Certain classic 2D shots ( like the over the shoulder shot in a conversation ) become problematic and restrictive in 3D. I suggest you look up 'stereoscopic edge violation.' and 'depth grading' then do another video essay on why stereoscopic 3D is just another kludge to fool our eyes.
It was mentioned in passing, but IMAX Digital is not the same experience as a true 15/70 IMAX screen. And the vast majority of nominally IMAX screens now are Digital.
Dolby Cinema >> IMAX Digital, for the record.
Yeah it was a segment I cut for pacing reasons, but the increasing adoption of Digital IMAX instead of the full 70mm film risks it having the same brand dilution effect as 3D post-conversion, where an inferior experience is advertised the same way as the premier quality one.
Yes, Yes, Yes! Great to see your video! Have subscribed and look forward to watching more from you! 🙂
I absolutely love IMAX, but I think it is being ruined and will face the same death as 3D. I remember the first IMAX films I saw where in museums because that's where the format was originally intended to be seen. And every time it blew my tiny mind as a little kid, this was back in the early 2000's when all those films where still on film. The image is huge, and incredibly bright! The brightness is what truly makes it an experience for me! The image is so clear and crisp, and the colours so real it's like it completely overwhelms all your senses and tricks you into being completely absorbed by the film! I love IMAX to death. I love that Christopher Nolan loves it to death.
Unfortunately IMAX themselves don't love it to death. Proper IMAX films are far to expensive. To shoot and show. You need special equipment with expensive film and cameras that weigh a ton. It's a huge commitment and you only get a few minutes of time to shoot with one reel. It's difficult to do. Then it needs to be screened the same way. With a print that's about 2 meters in diameter. A screen that would cost a fortune to install with a limited number of seats. So IMAX started building and branding theaters that were IMAX certified but really where just old theaters with the screen enlarged a bit. No where close to as large, as you said in the video. Than films started being marketed as being screened in IMAX despite the film having absolutely no IMAX cameras on set. When IMAX digital cameras where introduced it was a marginal improvement but didn't offer a sensor with the equivalent aspect ratio of the 70mm film. Not to mention being significantly smaller. Really all that happens now with most IMAX films is they shoot it, crop it for its wide release, and uncrop it for IMAX. But the actual aspect ratio of that uncropped film is basically the same as Super 35. Or 16:9 if you prefer. Its not that special compared to a normal screening. Especially when you see it on IMAX's terrible old digital projectors, which is what most theaters have.
I love IMAX and I think making an experience the likes of Dunkirk and the dark knight is what the movie industry needs to keep theaters open. But if they want to do that they need to make IMAX more special. The theaters need to be in a proper IMAX aspect ratio. They need to be either film, or the new laser projectors IMAX has made. I've seen them and they look good, very bright, not quite as sharp as film but much better than the old projectors. And finally IMAX needs to make a proper IMAX digital camera. No one besides Christopher Nolan is crazy enough to use there film cameras for a whole shoot. But a relatively compact digital camera without the hassle of film would be very appealing. It will still be a hard sell to studios but it's what the format needs to do to remain special. Every film you see in IMAX should fill that entire IMAX screen, be bright, loud, clear and completely surround you with images and sound.
It's a point I didn't really have time to touch on, but I agree that if the 'Filmed in IMAX' brand catches on and more and more 'LieMAX' cinemas start opening and showing them, then I fear it will go a similar way to 3D. Watering down the experience to make it cheaper to make as a film-maker and easier for theatres to host a below-quality screen will start diluting the IMAX brand like 3D. Hopefully enough big names like Nolan can help prevent (or at least delay) that from happening...
They've already done the best they can do with the cameras Marvel uses all the time now, that's pretty much the best we can expect.
What's funny with this argument is yea, old school imax back in the day felt a lot more special, but was also way less relevant due to their limited locations. Nowadays the imax brand is doing better and is way bigger than its ever been because of the compromises they've made in their expansions. All these Marvel movies for example would've just been shot regularly if not, cause there's no way they would've been like Chris Nolan.
@@Alex_Logan22 Yet what you pay up for most of the time is … a similar-sized screen, an aspect ratio more like my boring TV at home, and a slightly brighter or sharper picture than normal? Maybe, if you’re lucky?
I saw Dune in “IMAX with Laser” (man these guys suck at branding) and I loved it, but then I saw it at home on HBO Max, sitting very close to my big TV, and loved it. Ironically the thing I really missed from the theater had nothing to do with the picture, it was the sound.
@@Landoverse
Yea sound has always been my favorite perk of imax, but what you described has always been the case, even when imax was niche.
So, for a slight improvement in quality that the majority of viewers won't notice, the majority of _that_ majority being literally incapable of noticing, producers have to pay how much, exactly? Two times, three times, five times, ten times... need I go on? It wouldn't be worth it if everyone on the planet had eyes that could see the difference, _why would anyone bother when the majority of viewers _*_literally can't?!_*
the cathedral of cinema must provide you an experience you cannot get at home
Thank you for this. I have to drive 45 km from my home to the IMAX theater closest to me, the gas is ridiculously expensive nowadays in Brazil, parking is not cheap, but the thrill to watch a movie in that particular theater is absolutely worth it. Some friends don’t understand my obsession with IMAX - cause they never seen a movie there before. And the ones that accompany me from time to time say they never wanna watch movies in another theater. IMAX is life. IMAX is love.
I love imax, but my experience with my local true imax theater in San Francisco is that (even if they had to buy their tickets months before) people seem to think that the price entitles them to talk during the film, check their phone, take pictures of the screen. I find the theater going experience only angers me now. I haven’t been in several years.
I am however considering seeing Dune 2 in imax. I missed the first one. I really dislike that they don’t release the imax version for home release.
One slight clarification, that might've already been pointed out, but the airport sequence in Captain America: Civil War is the first use of the IMAX certified camera. Avenges: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame were both shot with the same camera in their entirety -- Arri Alexa 65.
Spot on - that was why I used the brief clip from Civil War at 08:23 before pointing out that Endgame was the first movie shot entirely with those cameras (I was focusing that section on 70mm IMAX-shot films, but wanted to introduce Marvel to briefly address the use of digital Filmed In IMAX cameras like the Arri Alexa).
@@PentexProductions Ah, I see what you were saying. My fault.
11:17 i absolutely do, front row on the opening night with the cinema at 100% capacity was something else
I really enjoyed this video, great work Mr. Pentex.
Thanks very much!
Personaly IMAX 3D is the best shit i ever experience
its the true meaning of immersive experience
it make me ignore every bit of "The Eternal" sreenwriting or even the chracter dev but just feeling like a little kid exploring a ride in disneyland.
I was blessed to see Jurassic Park for the first time in 3D at my local theater for its 30th anniversary, and I now know how audiences must have felt seeing Star Wars for the first time. 😮 While it wasn't IMAX, I felt that the 3D conversion was tastefully done and really improved the jump-scare moments. without being cheesy or overdone.
I love this video. Explained perfectly the IMAX experience
Dune, infinity war, dark knight, LOTR were all cinematic experiences worth the theater
5:18 THAT. YES!
4:14 Tintin movie was amazing in 3D. I have seen the movie in both 2D (home) and 3D (theater), and the 3D is the way to go for this movie.
As I said in the pinned comment, I think 3D on the whole works better for animated movies. Tintin is so much fun (and will feature heavily in my next video - stay tuned!)
Cool analisys. I'm a very IMAX fan since Avatar. Have seen Dune 2 times in IMAX, and it was the best cinema experience of my life ! I'm so sad that the IMAX shots are absent from the Dune blu-ray...
IMAX is great. No doubt about that. But there is more to it. There are basically two IMAXes - digital and analog. And the 70mm analog IMAX is simply glorious. That's what Penguin man talks about in the video. Unfortunately not many can experience that. First of all there are few theaters that offer 70mm screenings. Only 2 in Europe (in London and Prague). Then there are basically only two directors utilizing the grandioseness of 70mm IMAX - Nolan and Tarantino.
For example, Dunkirk is an exceptional and unrepeatable experience in 70mm. You can't get closer to being in a battle unless you are in a real one.
right, i just paused this topic at 3:03 mark to say this... from my point of view, standard 3D, or Real D 3D, sucks for live-action flicks. yes, years ago they were the next evolution in cinema, but thigs change. i saw Avatar in 3D & wasn't that into in. then it was re-released in IMAX AX 3D.... that sold me on the IMAX experience. 3D works well for animation but for live-action, i live for IMAX & IMAX 3D!
Unpopular opinion: I really like 3d movies
It depends which ones. Avatar is Goat'ed in 3D, others not so much
I'd argue the sound is even more important than the visuals with Dune in IMAX
I generally agree with what you said about IMAX. Recently however, even the greats like Christopher Nolan and Deni Villeneuve havent been using it perfectly. I saw both Tenet and Dune in IMAX, and both of them suffered from one big thing. Constant changing aspect ratios! Sure, there are sequences in both movies that fill the screen for long periods of time and are incredible. (I dont mond those.) But in between those segments are random full frame IMAX shots that then immediately go back to regular widescreen. This sometimes even happens multiple times during a scene and it shows how the film makers actually havent planned properly for the IMAX format. They just shoot it and place it randomly for no reason. It gets distracting. Funny enough, No time to die only did this once, and the restnof the imax scenes were long and unchanging.
Well, im a big lover of 3D and the perfect way to get fully immersed is in fact a native Imax 3D movie. Like Avatar : the way of water or Transformers 5 : The last knight. While Dune 1 and 2 were an absolute amazing experience ... it could benefit from 3D particularly in this superior format cause it adds the absolute finishing touch to mind-blowing cinema without the headache issues of regular 3D.
The one thing I still can't stand though how my own home theater sells these grand movies far better than my local IMAXs can. The projectors are so washed out and the sound quality is just flacid.
I'm in Vancouver BC, one of the filmmaking capitals of the world, and there's basically no good theater around here unless I ferry to Victoria BC or drive down to Seattle ;/
Fantastic video! However, your resolution is WRONG for 70mm 15perf IMAX. 12k is for 70mm 5perf film, 18K is for 70mm 15perf film!
two questions:
1. imax cameras can be digital or analog, right?
2. is a movie that was not shot in imax still better in an imax cinema?
great video by the way.
This is me trying to explain why we need to pay more for IMAX to my friends and they go “it’s just bigger screen that’s all”
It's crazy to me that you put that specific Harry Potter movie in @ 3:00, because I remember seeing it in 3D in theaters as a kid and thinking: "these characters look like cardboard cutouts" and that the depth of the 3D just wasn't right.
The only theater near me that has a real IMAX screen closed down during the Pandemic. Thankfully, I got to see Endgame there before that happened, but it sucks that I'd need to drive an hour away to see a real IMAX movie now.
That T-Rex scene .... omg !!!!!!!
I didn't know your channel, and UA-cam recommended this to me, probably because I loved this movie and watched most of the stuff other people said lol.
Amazing content, I subscribed and will checkout other videos of yours when time allows.
Thanks, and welcome! Hope you enjoy the other videos
VR headsets would be next IMAX home theater.
3/d still exists and imax isn’t widely spread. Literally all theaters can output 3/d but not all theatre’s have imax
I'm eagerly waiting for Avatar 2, I missed watching it on big screen as I was kid back then. Only for that money, I made my dad to buy 3D sony tv (which I used very little now for 3D). Now I will watch it in IMAX at any cost.
Well said sir. Wholeheartedly agree
Apple's Vision Pro is the next IMAX at home. You can watch a cinematic experience on a 100 feet augmented reality TV
*Any VR headset
Apple does not own the rights to 3D films or simulated displays
being disabled i won't ever experience imax or theater 3D. So i opted instead for 2nd best in a jvc 47" 3D tv. Avatar was an experience not to be believed.
Yeah well the issue is I couldn’t. No imax in Brisbane and the borders were closed. Was so pissed off. Still loved the movie but you could tell it was cropped down. It was distracting at times. There’d be a giant worm or a ship that was half cut out of frame.
You can maximize your expirience with liemax screen by sitting upfront, actually the best sitting position would be in the 3-5 row center seat.
I'm a fan of Nolan's work. (Much of it anyway.) But he's dead wrong on this issue. A GOOD 3D presentation (meaning active shutter glasses) is orders-of-magnitude more involving for the viewer than any 2D presentation could ever hope to be. 2D is just...watching a movie. Good 3D is like looking through a window into another world.
And isn't that why we watch movies, to lose ourselves in the story?
Was pretty disappointed that the 4k Blu ray for Dune didn't bother to maintain the full screen IMAX shots and instead uses ultra wide aspect ratios for the whole runtime.
It was actually James Cameron who suggested IMAX to Nolan.
I'm gonna level with you chief I have no idea what you are saying. I'm no way near an IMAX but I have never even considered the size of the cinema. I don't even regard the cinema as the better experience. The only reason I go to the cinema is cause I want to see a new movie, if it releases for my TV I'll just watch it there, I don't get it.
You said your statements with such confidence I wonder if I'm the one that's off.
Fair enough. There's not really much more I can add than what I covered in the video. All I would say is if you find yourself in a city that has a proper IMAX screen and there is a new IMAX movie out like a Mission Impossible or Nolan movie, then try and go see it in IMAX and see how it compares to a standard cinema. Try and get a seat as close to the centre of the screen as possible, ideally the middle row of the theatre too.
I think IMax is the best way, but in my opinion, VR is the second best. Any size screen, (if you have good headphones) amazing audio, and no distractions. Theaters are obviously the best, but if that movie is gone and not in theaters any more, VR is the best substitute.
I still don’t regret driving an hour to see Dune in an IMAX theater. It was so worth it!
Also, I’ve always been under the impression that Avatar saved IMAX. My family went to go see it in IMAX 3D and my Dad still talks about how good the 3D (I was a little kid so I don’t remember much of it). But point is: the stock for IMAX skyrocketed pretty soon after Avatar opened. So while it was revolutionary for 3D, it also gave life support for IMAX which had been on the brink of death before that. Of course, otherwise I feel like Nolan has been really generating interest in IMAX as said in the video.
Definitely worth the trip. I actually had a segment in this video that I cut arguing that IMAX was really what made Avatar but people thought it was the 3D because of how it was marketed. There were heaps of IMAX sales for Avatar, and after The Dark Knight audiences were still a bit unused to seeing movies on that scale.
What good is the best possible cinema with the best possible sound and screen when only a handful of best possible seats allow viewers to experience the films as intended. Try sitting off to the sides or in the lower or upper third and you will only have a distorted or distracting view.
Best case: Wearing the most comfortable glasses etc => You forget you are watching a 3D movie after a few minutes.
Wrst case: The glasses don't fit well, they are dirty (sometimes on top of the regular glasses), you get ghosting (starfields in movies with high contrast for example) .. etc.
Unless a movie actually rewards the viewer by being deep 3D and uses that effect well its just not worth it.
Turns out you can have both in VR. Huge IMAX screen in your living room that's also 3D.
IMAX gives you more stuff to look at plus a badass sound system; 3D makes you put on glasses to look at either a discolored or blurry version of the movie you're trying to get absorbed in.
I remember going to a small local theater that *only* played the big movies in 3D. I was so mad when I learned I had to buy a dumbass pair of glasses with my ticket plus soda to Rogue One because the theater owner thought it was still 2009 & that audiences gave a damn about 3D. I kept those stupid glasses for the other movies they only played in 3D for a year or so before the manager seemed to get the idea & actually offered ppl to see these movies the regular way.
I love 3D films. In fact I may even go see a 3D film I wouldn't normally go see had it only been in 2D. IMAX 3D is the best. I wish all movies were filmed and presented in 3D. The added immersion and feeling of depth that comes with a 3D eperience is incredible and adds so much to the movie going experience. I'm currently looking for a good UST projector and will not buy one unless it supports 3D. When Avatar 2 comes out, people will once again be shown the power of 3D. I saw both Interstellar and Tenet in IMAX and boy, were they both horrible experiences. Tenet was possibly the worst cinematic experience I have ever endured. Had it been in 3D, I probably would have started bleeding from my ears and ended up in hospital.
Thank you for your creative efforts in helping coalesce the suspicions in my own mind into a well formed argument I can have with others.
Glad to be of service - feel free to share and argue the point with others!
Then IMAX closed everywhere and limited release of home content. Truly amazing stuff.
Infinity War was actually the first movie to be shot completely with IMAX cameras, not End Game. Also, though NTTD was shot with IMAX film cameras, it was not distributed on IMAX film. Hence only dual laser IMAX venues got the 1.43:1 version of the movie (same with Nope). Dune was the first 1.43:1 IMAX movie shot digitally. I am surprised you talked about this whole Dume thing without once mentioning the larger than life IMAX 1.43:1 IMAX ratio (in GT dual laser venues).
Weirdly enough, 3d was more accessible than imax. More theatres use to show 3d while imax needed a screen specifically designed for it.
Emphasis on was cause I couldn't find any showing for a 3d showing. Not even spidey verse in the cinema I know had it before
Why can't we have IMax+Real3D (Originally captured in Stereoscopic IMax cameras) ???
I personally have chosen to watch movies in 3D over IMAX this year since IMAX stopped offering 3D here in the states, saw Dune in 3D twice, IMAX is cool but imo 3D is the experience
IMAX themselves are diluting their brand when they introduced the "certified IMAX cameras" "filmed for IMAX" now there's way too many formats for them than with 3D, you got the certified IMAX cameras like Dune and the MCU movies, you got the digital IMAX camera from Transformers AoE/TLK (IMAX 3D), Sully, and Infinity War/Endgame, mission impossible fallout and then you get the 15perf 70mm IMAX with Nolan and NTTD
That imo is way worse because you don't know what's imax or what isn't and IMAX knows this since now they can just fill their 1.90:1 screen call full screen IMAX and call it a day
Totally agree IMAX risks going the same way as 3D if the 'Filmed in IMAX" cameras become more widespread, and the LieMax cinemas catch on. People want the experience, and diluting it will not work out in the long run.
thank you
Thank YOU for watching
A man in the picture here shown he wear the 3d glasses of 80th no wonder why imax beat 3D.He should wear the 3D glasses introduced by James Cameron in Avatar 1, the 3D was awesome and fantastic indeed!
GREAT VIDEO 👍