I didn't realize that it was all shot on the Alexa 65, I think that would be a first since only parts of "The Revenant" and "Captain America: Civil War" were shot that way. Look forward to seeing it now.
Jump to content
15 replies to this topic
Posted 02 September 2016 - 03:10 AM
So that Arri Alexa IMAX is not an altogether different camera?
I just clicked on that link and that onto the main page of the film on IMDb and oh, my! All that steely teal. That greyness. That lead-colour everywhere. Couldn’t they have picked any other colour scheme... It seems as if movies with such topics just write themselves in terms of lighting and visuals by default in those terribly bleak colours. Coupled with digital sharpness, I can only assume I will hate it.
Posted 02 September 2016 - 10:42 AM
Again.....laughing every time I hear the VO guy on the TV spots say, "see it in IMAX." How long will Hollywood keep this fraud going?
Posted 02 September 2016 - 11:41 AM
For as long as the trademark cross-licensing deal between ARRI and IMAX for "exclusive" use of "customised/distinct" Alexa 65s is in place, I guess . Franz Kraus spoke of a multi-year deal, no precise figures, so that in itself is quite noteworthy.
Posted 02 September 2016 - 01:31 PM
Arri 65 is not an IMAX camera it has the about the same format as Super Panavision 70 / Todd AO . And that format is a long way removed from the original Imax format . Its all a big marketing lie .
Posted 02 September 2016 - 03:40 PM
IMAX is certainly not the first company to whore themselves out to Hollywood. And "whore" is the appropriate word here.
Posted 02 September 2016 - 09:18 PM
What kills me is that we're stilling dealing with a 1.90:1 aspect ratio screen, we're still dealing with 2k distribution in most cases and 4k in very few 'special' venues.
How this movie could even deserve the IMAX logo stamped on it, is another example of how big business abuses customers. They built up a reputation of excellence and now they don't care because it's all about money. Reminds me of the THX syndrome. Back in the day THX meant timbre matched speakers, with special EQ's, with high power amp's and low THD. Today anyone can put a THX logo on their speaker systems, but nobody cares because the brand is dead thanks to the devaluation of their product.
IMAX is going the same way, for every "new" digital IMAX theater, there are literally dozens who stop paying for IMAX equipment and turn back into regular theaters now that IMAX doesn't offer anything special. Standard run of the mill polarized 3D and nothing special 4k distribution. I have a feeling non science museum IMAX theaters will go the way of THX very soon, maybe within the next 5 years. Once theater owners realize the Dolby 4k laser system is much less money and the audience clearly doesn't care since they keep going, they'll not resign IMAX contracts.
That's not to say IMAX's NEW 4k Laser projectors aren't awesome, because they truly are. No doubt the best looking digital projection device made. Yet, for 1.5M EACH, it's a tall order for theaters that aren't bringing in some serious bux.
Posted 03 September 2016 - 03:10 AM
Well, yes of course it is a marketing lie, or, as the German language says it, 'Etikettenschwindel', although nowadays, we say "trademark cross-licensing deal for parallel unrelated activities", and it's legally okay. The analogy to THX is spot on. We know the format and image acquisition differences, and mature viewers or cinema goers might as well. But to be honest, from my experience from conversations, the key demo of 14-28 doesn't know anything about this, and doesn't really care. For them, IMAX is simply a grander theatre with "bigger picture" and more oomph, and whether they go there depends on them being able to pay the premium over a regular movie ticket or their want to invest it in aftershow drinks. Just as THX lost its credibility when Sony brought out lacklustre home audio/video components with the name, or their THX car audio line, I am sure there is still a bit of commercial mileage left milking IMAX... I am thinking top end home digital video projection... I know... hashtag sarcasm.
Posted 03 September 2016 - 12:04 PM
I bet they've thought about it for rich people.
Posted 03 September 2016 - 09:47 PM
They could also try "Organic" IMAX.. this will work well at screens in Santa Monica..
Posted 03 September 2016 - 10:04 PM
I didn't plan on getting into this whole "is it IMAX?" issue -- my point in the original post was this might be one of the first Hollywood features all shot on the Alexa 65, meaning 6K uncompressed raw, so it's probably going to make a nice-looking 4K presentation.
Posted 04 September 2016 - 12:03 AM
I don't see why more theatres don't abandon the IMAX brand and simply setup their own similar system. Back in the day, IMAX had their own patented projectors and cameras and such. Now, they basically use off-the-shelf stuff with minor tweaks. And really, most of these cinemaplex IMAX screens are simply a little bigger, with an upgraded sound system, and the seats moved closer to the screen to simulate a larger screen size.
I guess because IMAX still has saturation among audience members.
Edited by Landon D. Parks, 04 September 2016 - 12:03 AM.
Posted 04 September 2016 - 01:51 AM
It might be similar to the way modern pedestrian moviegoers might know "Technicolor" as a certain look, when Technicolor the company today has zero photochemical operation let alone the long-defunct 3-strip and IB process.
A "pivot" that capitalizes on brand cachet and history is a great business move for them. Just unfortunate to the roots of the format and brand.
Edited by Kenny N Suleimanagich, 04 September 2016 - 01:52 AM.
Posted 04 September 2016 - 10:47 AM
I think the rule of thumb is about 75%, so 4.5K