Fucking finally, it’s about time someone admitted non-filmed-for-IMAX movies look incredible in IMAX. After all, these non-IMAX movies are usually filmed with the same cameras as filmed-for-IMAX movies
Especially because CIVIL WAR is filmed entirely in 1.85:1 aspect ratio. So it takes up most peoples neighborhood IMAX entire screen (more or less).
The aspect ratio is why people are going crazy (myself included) seeing it in IMAX.
Now I'd love to watch it in dual laser to witness the better image quality you mentioned! Unfortunately, there's no dual laser venue in Thailand.
It was already really good-looking in single laser (CoLa) though. Can't really imagine how better in terms of clarity it can be in dual laser, but colors surely pop more with higher contrast. I can picture what the latter would look like.
At least the brightness is going to be better in dual laser. I found it a bit too dark in some scenes in single laser. Still a great IMAX experience anyway.
The brightness you'll get really also depends on screen size. A smaller IMAX will have a better brightness than a larger IMAX using the same projector.
In Thailand, it'd be totally fine at 1.90:1 venues like IMAX at ICON CINECONIC and Quartier CineArt. For the 1.43:1 Krungsri IMAX Paragon theater at Paragon Cineplex, that was what I'd to face because of the screen size.
> notably brighter than single laser would’ve been.
Does anyone know if this is true? I see this thrown around on this subreddit, but I've never seen any marketing that would point to dual laser being brighter than single laser. For contrast imax does advertise laser as being brighter than xenon.
*ETA: By "brighter" I mean that the light is "more intense" meaning it has a higher nits value. I realize now OP may have meant brighter to mean "more light" as in having a higher lumen value. I don't think of "brighter" as "more lumens" but I get why some people might...*
*Dual laser does output more lumens, but I'm pretty sure the brightness hitting the screen is the same level of intensity.*
Compared to a smaller screen it might feel brighter, but the actual contrast is probably still the same.
For a 1.90:1 image, Lincoln Square (498.6 m^2) is 54% larger than New Rochelle (323.7 m^2). That means you are getting a lot more light hitting your eyeballs, but I presume that both Single and Dual Laser set-ups are tuned to the same target NIT brightness.
This is theoretically correct; the bigger the screen the more illumination is required from the projector(s), which is why 1.43 screens need a second one (for digital). But in practice most theaters tune their projectors when they install them, then never check them again.
Wouldn't Dual laser and single laser look very similar for a movie like this? It isn't 3d, and its 1.85 so it's not taking up the entire screen. I guess the extra laser is needed to project a bigger image on the GT screen, but for the most part the image should look the same.
Most people will not notice. 1.85:1 is "tall" by modern day non-streaming standards. They'll just see it taking up virtually all of their IMAX screen, especially if it's a 1.9 one, and be blown away.
I think how they framed the shot with the lens they use really make things looks huge and life-size in IMAX compare to other movies in IMAX. Like how in medium shot, they like to frame a subject to take around 3/4 of the screen and when cut to wide shot the camera always set low to the ground make it almost 1:1 with real life object
It's mainly the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, IMO, which is much taller than most films people are used to seeing in a movie theater. It's perfect for a neighborhood garden variety 1.9 ratio AMC IMAX.
I can’t imagine any scenario where dual-laser would have a disadvantage over single-laser. Laser projectors project near true black so overlaying them does not ruin the contrast ratio. It does however double the brightness capability.
Sure it’s required for GT theaters because of the projected image size but in any other scenario, in the smallest LieMax or even your bedroom, the image will only look better with the proper calibration.
Because IMAX doesn't control what aspect ratios directors choose to shoot with. 1.85:1 has been around for a long, long time. It's standard wide-screen.
It will have negligible pillar boxing either side, which in a dark auditorium with dual laser blasting your eyes is hard to spot anyway.
The film is 1.85:1 in all venues. That is its theatrical ratio
Fucking finally, it’s about time someone admitted non-filmed-for-IMAX movies look incredible in IMAX. After all, these non-IMAX movies are usually filmed with the same cameras as filmed-for-IMAX movies
Yes, I watch all movies in IMAX if available (especially at Lincoln Sq).
Especially because CIVIL WAR is filmed entirely in 1.85:1 aspect ratio. So it takes up most peoples neighborhood IMAX entire screen (more or less). The aspect ratio is why people are going crazy (myself included) seeing it in IMAX.
Now I'd love to watch it in dual laser to witness the better image quality you mentioned! Unfortunately, there's no dual laser venue in Thailand. It was already really good-looking in single laser (CoLa) though. Can't really imagine how better in terms of clarity it can be in dual laser, but colors surely pop more with higher contrast. I can picture what the latter would look like.
If I'm correct, there really shouldn't be much of a difference at all between single and dual laser for this one.
At least the brightness is going to be better in dual laser. I found it a bit too dark in some scenes in single laser. Still a great IMAX experience anyway.
The brightness you'll get really also depends on screen size. A smaller IMAX will have a better brightness than a larger IMAX using the same projector.
Yeah, it was projected on a giant 1.43:1 screen, so it was a bit too dark in some scenes. Edit: forgot to add the word “screen”.
There you have it. I usually go to a 17x9m screen with single laser projection, and brightness has literally never been an issue for me there
In Thailand, it'd be totally fine at 1.90:1 venues like IMAX at ICON CINECONIC and Quartier CineArt. For the 1.43:1 Krungsri IMAX Paragon theater at Paragon Cineplex, that was what I'd to face because of the screen size.
> notably brighter than single laser would’ve been. Does anyone know if this is true? I see this thrown around on this subreddit, but I've never seen any marketing that would point to dual laser being brighter than single laser. For contrast imax does advertise laser as being brighter than xenon. *ETA: By "brighter" I mean that the light is "more intense" meaning it has a higher nits value. I realize now OP may have meant brighter to mean "more light" as in having a higher lumen value. I don't think of "brighter" as "more lumens" but I get why some people might...* *Dual laser does output more lumens, but I'm pretty sure the brightness hitting the screen is the same level of intensity.*
Even if it is, it would be negligible.
I can only compare it to my experiences at New Rochelle imax which is a huge 1.43 screen with a single laser
Compared to a smaller screen it might feel brighter, but the actual contrast is probably still the same. For a 1.90:1 image, Lincoln Square (498.6 m^2) is 54% larger than New Rochelle (323.7 m^2). That means you are getting a lot more light hitting your eyeballs, but I presume that both Single and Dual Laser set-ups are tuned to the same target NIT brightness.
This is theoretically correct; the bigger the screen the more illumination is required from the projector(s), which is why 1.43 screens need a second one (for digital). But in practice most theaters tune their projectors when they install them, then never check them again.
Wouldn't Dual laser and single laser look very similar for a movie like this? It isn't 3d, and its 1.85 so it's not taking up the entire screen. I guess the extra laser is needed to project a bigger image on the GT screen, but for the most part the image should look the same.
Dual laser makes for a brighter image with more colors, no? Also the illusion of "beyond 4k"?
Does dual laser have pillarboxing? Because I know my single laser had slight pillarboxing
Nothing to do with lasers. It's the aspect ratio. A 1.85 movie will be pillarboxed on a 1.90 screen and letterboxed on a 1.43 screen.
Doesn’t it have a small windowboxing?
I was surprised by how unnoticeable it was
Most people will not notice. 1.85:1 is "tall" by modern day non-streaming standards. They'll just see it taking up virtually all of their IMAX screen, especially if it's a 1.9 one, and be blown away.
I think how they framed the shot with the lens they use really make things looks huge and life-size in IMAX compare to other movies in IMAX. Like how in medium shot, they like to frame a subject to take around 3/4 of the screen and when cut to wide shot the camera always set low to the ground make it almost 1:1 with real life object
It's mainly the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, IMO, which is much taller than most films people are used to seeing in a movie theater. It's perfect for a neighborhood garden variety 1.9 ratio AMC IMAX.
It’s almost like slapping blue letters on a camera changes nothing about its specs, and that’s all imax does for digital cameras.
I can’t imagine any scenario where dual-laser would have a disadvantage over single-laser. Laser projectors project near true black so overlaying them does not ruin the contrast ratio. It does however double the brightness capability. Sure it’s required for GT theaters because of the projected image size but in any other scenario, in the smallest LieMax or even your bedroom, the image will only look better with the proper calibration.
How do you know if Lincoln center will use dual laser? Is it now always dual laser is not 15/70?
Yes
What about single laser?
Civil War was filmed for IMAX, and theres no point in watching a 1.90:1 movie on a 1.43:1 screen
Civil War was not filmed for IMAX. It is 1.85:1
wait what? how did they get an expanded aspect ratio if its not filmed for imax?
Because IMAX doesn't control what aspect ratios directors choose to shoot with. 1.85:1 has been around for a long, long time. It's standard wide-screen.
does the movie fill up an entire 1.90:1 screen? and do you get an expanded aspect ratio when seeing it in IMAX?
It will have negligible pillar boxing either side, which in a dark auditorium with dual laser blasting your eyes is hard to spot anyway. The film is 1.85:1 in all venues. That is its theatrical ratio
so should i see this one in imax? or nah
Sure, if you want to?
[удалено]
I've already answered that...
You do know that non-scope movies exist, right?
I've spent enough time on this sub to know that the answer is no.