You can still have freedom within the a standardized setting. I am not saying that all movies have to be in the same aspect ratio, but there should be an understood standard that the movie theater will adhere to. Let's say 21:9 for the fuck of it. Seems like a perfectly good aspect ratio for video. That doesn't mean that you have to make all of your movies 21:9. And like Star Wars appears to do, or as Dark Knight did (or probably many other films, those are just the two I can think of), you are free to change the aspect ratio between different scenes as you see fit. But do so with the understanding that the audience will be looking at a 21:9 screen. So if you want it even wider, then there are going to be black bars on the top and bottom (more or less) and on the sides for less wide aspect ratios. Feel free to shoot the whole things in 4:3, if that is what you want, but even now, they have to understand that most places aren't going to have proper support for those aspect ratios, so it will essentially have to crop the projector (add black bars). If there was a standard, it would just make it easier for the movie theaters and the audience to go about things. The audience wouldn't have to worry about whether they are getting "true IMAX" or what have you, and the theater would only really have to worry about the dpi (more or less, via the size of the screen and the resolution of the projectors). And directors and the like can still support seeing it in a higher resolution for the true effect or whatever, but it won't require a completely strange aspect ratio.
I don't know. Maybe it is just my way of thinking that makes this set up more attractive. I really like standards and digitalizing everything. Digital media is the future, in my mind. One day, I expect that film reels will go the way of cassette tapes.
well, aside from aspect ratio, 'True IMAX' usually have much taller screens. The one i went to literally had a 97ft screen. MASSIVE. most screens are around 35-40 i would say?
Of course digital will overcome film. Film is at the limit of what we can do with it. Digital is in its infancy. I highly recomend a documentary, which i have watched a couple times, called 'Side by Side'. It is on Netflix, and is about film vs Digital.
Thank you for mentioning that documentary. I had never heard of it and found it to be very interesting and compelling. What I found the most interesting is that I don't think that anyone who was interviewed said that they thought that digital would never take the place of film. Everyone seemed to have the understanding that the question isn't if, but when. Hopefully, when it does completely retire film (for the most part anyway), and people stop thinking so much in terms of film and really start seeing movies as videos, we can readdress these things which were settled based on the physical and chemical limitations of film.
Something else that I found interesting is that all of this push towards digital and increasing the resolutions of cameras and projectors and whatnot can be done in the commercial market as well. We have 4k and 5k tvs and monitors. But there is nothing that we can really watch on them. They make great computer monitors and gaming screens, but not so great as daily TVs because who broadcasts in 4k? The amount of data that it would require to stream 4k is INSANE. And we are held back by the infrastructure. Brings me back to Wendell's mentality of data bandwidth and the cable industry holding progress at bay. We can have the cinema experience at home without a projector. A 4k, curved, large monitor will do perfectly well. Get some nice speakers, or headphones and you are set. It really brings the theater to you. And I think that is really important because of the amount of films that are made. Not only is it becoming more accessible to make films with the expansion of digital, we still have all the old films as well. People will still want to watch them. The library of movies doesn't change every year or every generation, it just gets bigger. We can't expect people to realistically go to the movies for all of these films, especially older ones that aren't showing anymore. But that doesn't mean you can be completely enveloped like the film wants you to be. Anyway, I am rambling.
From working In the video production industry its not the Cable companies that are holding you at bay its the Over the Air tech that is. Your local broadcast stations may not even be broadcasting at 1920x1080 in the Washington DC area 1/3 of the stations are only airing content at 720p. The Antenna and infrastructure needs for HD on the production end only became feasible for most stations in 2008 even though the tech and standards for HD had been around since the 90's and that took a big push by the US Gov to make that happen still. High Quality broadcast master digital files suck up ruffly 90-120 gigabytes of data per hour for low compression HD codecs.
Netflix which used to promote their 4k content has all but stopped hyping what is or is not shot in 4k anymore as it takes 15mbps connections to get access to it and the quality is only on par with broadcast HD footage at the moment. these are not limitations that Cable companies impose its just that display tech is always ahead of transmishion technology.
TV makers are pushing new tech to try and keep the sales up from the original 2007-2008 HD mandated upgrade that got consumers buying tv's at a record rate. In reality every TV produced over I believe 40 inches since 2009 have more than 1920x1080 pixels its just a matter of putting on different electronics to the TV.
If you're seeing a "true" IMAX, then 3D won't be available at all. All of the movie was shot in 2D and made 3D later. However, the 70mm part was never make 3D, so the whole film is screened in 2D. I'm not a fan of 3D either.
@1920_1080p_1280_720p I agree. I think that at home, people will have setups to watch ultra HD content. This is an obvious trend as people buy new tech all the time. However, there will need to be content hoops. Kind of like analog TV to digital HDTV and DSL to the DOCSIS. However, I think that it will take a really long time for the theaters to become obsolete. They will always have the best new tech for a one time, one view price, which could be cheaper than buying your own setup. Also, I don't think that VR will get as much foothold as they say it will. Some people like it and some hate it and some feel sick when wearing it. The IMAX theater is proven, so it will continue to be developed, and people (non-nerds) will continue to take the low risk factor of not too outrageous price and "it's a fancier and bigger screen and sound system." Also, as long as the movie companies continue to make money form theaters, they will release there first.
So, it will continue to be as it is now. The really new stuff in theaters and the old stuff (and current but not before theaters) on your own screen at home. Both will simply develop with technology.
I actually love the theater experience. I can't wait to see a Laser IMAX projection. Might see if they will be doing IMAX LASER screenings of Hateful 8 in San Francisco. IDK.
OK, so I just saw it, but I won't spoil anything. First off, the 70mm part was awesome!
I really hadn't been to this particular theater in a while. I forgot just how close the seats are to the screen. I will admit, I was very immersed in it, but I don't think that I would have come out with the same sense of balance if it was a three hour movie. Also, because I was so close, I could see both the dome panels and the camera noise. What was funny was how you could see that ILM's props were indeed practical props. You could see that they were handmade. It was both good and bad. What was definitely good was that you could see the practical effects and explosions. I won't say which once I think were real, but I think that some were.
@Tjj226_Angel I see why you don't like the dome. I did like how immersed I was in it, but the last film that I was there was a third to a half as long as this one and definitely not such a fantastically well done one (really bug budget). Yes the trees and some faces were definitely skewed, and the panels were really obvious in the lighter scenes.
I'm surprised that only one scene really was in 70mm and how short it was. The switch was really smooth (it did the expanding bars animation), and it did make that scene stand out. If you were already immersed, this immersed you more. It was definitely worth it!
What did blow me away as all IMAX theaters do is the sound. They can get it down to 20Hz. You feel it and here it, especially in cinematic Sci-Fi movies with gloriously recorded musical scores like Star Wars.
I had a little bit of a headache afterwards. It was worth it, but I don't know that I'd want to sit in a theater like that particular one again. All of the seats no matter where you sat were way to close to the screen.
So, I definitely still like the whole IMAX spiel, but not in that theater again. I like the dome, but not that one where it's as wrapped as it is and the seats are so steep and close to it. It was very packed in. I think that I'll try a curved screen next time.