@realnerdpapa oh, yeah, sure sure. Hope you don't take that seriously, it's just a joke because I'm so used d to hearing Chatgpt's voice when I talk with it constantly
I went with with my dad and our friends to see Gladiator II in IMAX and when they payed the trailers before the film I noticed how most trailers were your day to day films and not even worth buying a ticket for. If I’m being honest I’m finding a lot of the stuff being pumped out of Hollywood is pure crap because they don’t care about telling an amazing story and reverencing the sound design and quality of the picture. You do have directors like James Cameron or Steven Spielberg who still treat it like a passion affair of the heart and they make it all the worthwhile. Funny though how most things IMAX worthy are being suppressed to streaming while streaming quality stuff is being vomited onto the big screen. Great vid and being a filmmaker I agree!
Cinemas should now be more immersive and take advantages of new technology. Spheres or making the audience feel they’re in the movie without 3D glasses
This video caught my eye because of the 'provocative' title, and I thought I might get to hear the sound design I did for the Imax 'Cliffhanger' promo I edited way back in 2014. WTH?? Imax was around LOOONG before they started partnering with Hollywood on blockbuster film releases. It started out in the 70's with expo & documentary films in special installations and museums - exclusively shot on 70mm film. The filmakers then understood that there was so much visual information to take in that the edits were slower paced to allow the audience to take everything in. They largely stayed away from dramas, but started to incorporate that slowly over the years, still with slower edits, especially with the advent of 3D. Only after they were bought out by American interests in 1994, did they develop another audience stream by partnering with a few Hollywood studios with selected blockbuster simultaneous releases. Through software developed by Hugh Murray and his team, they increased the effective resolution of scans of Hollywood films so they would be projected onto the larger screen without also increasing the film grain size known as DMR. Now, they're projecting with lasers - albeit at a lower resolution that the 70mm film because that tech isn't quite there for 10+ k resolution yet. Filmakers like Christopher Nolan started shooting big action scenes in Imax for the increased resolution, allowing them to reframe without noticeably losing resolution. He shot Oppenheimer pretty much exclusively in Imax. Imax film cameras (especially 3D ones) are VERY loud. These days many are shot digitally at 8k, some with modified commercially available gear. They are developing a digital camera that will give them the film equivalent resolution of 18k. That will make for some interesting workflows, i'm sure. Imax was 6 channels of audio from the start, and they developed the 12 channel immersive format only AFTER Dolby Atmos came to market to offer competition in the immersive arena. You are making a lot of assumptions about filmmaker's choices here... Filmmakers aren't necessarily the ones making the call and what formats the film is going to be distributed in - that's up to the studios and whatever distribution deals, they can arrange. I go to see films in an Imax theatre that I know will take advantage of both the large screen and the powerful 12 channel immersive sound system. That does not ruin the experience of seeing other types of movies in smaller theatres, and the tickets for those are usually less expensive.
I agree with you that studios are using the IMAX brand to sell their big budget films now. Just a couple of things you mentioned in the video that aren't correct. Films that were not shot with IMAX cameras aren't "stretched" to fit the IMAX screen. You probably see the term "Filmed for IMAX" a lot these days and that's because digital film cameras like Arri or Sony were certified by IMAX and when those movies that were "Shot for IMAX" are shown at IMAX theaters, they use the camera's aspect ratio of 1.90:1 or 2.00:1. Recent films like Dune Part 1 and 2 actually shot some scenes in 4:3 or IMAX's aspect ratio of 1.43:1 so those scenes can fill up the real IMAX screens. So, there's no stretching the footage to fill up IMAX screens.
@@David0Perez0 No it does not. All of the IMAX certified cameras have the resolution to match IMAX's standards and most directors shot the their films with IMAX's aspect ratio in mind. Now, if you're talking about older films, then they have to make some changes to make it fit the IMAX's screen.
It was the with 3D. Every movie was being offered in 3D for a while and it turned out that it was a gimmick for ticket sales. Now you don't see movies being done in 3D. And it was a scam because you always had an extra charge for the 3D glasses. What needs to be done is make great movies and stop with the Gimmicks.
The reason an entire feature film hasn't been shot in Imax yet is that the cameras are large and loud, which means forget capturing on-set dialog without the sound of camera. I suppose with the latest AI (e.g. Adobe Enhanced Speech) the camera noise can be removed. Maybe in Nolan's next film.
I honestly don't even like the expanded ratio most of the time. (context dependent - youtube will be youtube) Just give me bigger normal ratio screens. I personally find the wider screens more emursive (to an extent) then the taller screens. As a video editor myself, I can totally get behind bigger and brighter screens and louder speakers, but if the content isnt worthy of filling that then there is no point. There are sometimes that I can get behind a taller aspect ratio, but if the taller aspect ratio does not make the content MORE emursive then there is no point. This also depends on if your content is for web media or not. For example, I edit documentary style for a youtube channel, and we deliver in 4k 16-9, personally though I would love to deliver in 2-1 or slightly narrower, but we craft the entire video to fit the 16-9 so in some cases it would look weird to deliver like that. It all comes down to shooting for how you want to deliver.
yeah first we widened to get to CinemaScope, now we're heightening to get back to the 4:3. not to mention, jumping from one format to another is horrible. stick to an aspect ratio and do the entire film in the same one. unless changing the ratio is a storytelling technique.
aspect ratio is one thing, resolution is another. cinema started with 4:3, the widened to 16:9, then widened even more to 21:9 (or similar) to be even more "cinematic, expansive, immersive." so IMAX is regressing back to something between 4:3 and 16:9 while upping up the resolution. cheat.
You said “let’s take a step back to the early days of IMAX” and you show movies like Avatar 2, The Dark Knight, and Interstellar. That’s most definitely not the beginning of IMAX. Would have been more helpful to get into specific aspect ratio details and not just talk about the buzz words like “stretched” or “enhanced”
These are movies which made IMAX popular before that it was only documentaries and animated movies. But I’ll make sure to go into more detail in future videos.
so.. the problem *isn't* IMAX but the marketing of films *not* shot in IMAX (film or digital). And buyer beware. A great story, not spectacle, makes a great film.
i wish I could view Imax. I only saw once probably 30 years ago with an school trip. But I think it closed more than 10 years ago. The next IMAX I think it's about 500km. And I'm not thinking it's worth get a plane or more than a day trip to see a movie.
I think you need to do some research because you said the “expanded ratio” is just standard images on the imax screen when it isn’t. Sometimes it is obviously but with most marvel movies now and even like dune 1&2, they were shot with imax digital cameras with a much larger image size compared to standard image size. And also not even Chris Nolan films his entire movies in imax so the part where you said “if it isn’t fully shot in IMAX don’t advertise in imax” you are foolin yourself quite a bit there
@@realnerdpapa Yep. After it's filmed, if i don't remember wrong it cost 2000$ for each 1 minute of video to prepare the movie or so for IMAX Cinema's.
Very much agree. The only real advantage IMAX once had was true 70mm and VERY large screens in a select few dedicated venues. Now, 70mm releases are very infrequent, and shown only in a select fraction of those dedicated IMAX venues, the rest using laser projection similar to Dolby Cinema. At least at the AMC I go to the laser speckle is noticeable on the IMAX screen, especially with animation, but not on the Dolby Cinema. For sound, Atmos and the large array of speakers in the Dolby Cinema can place sounds anywhere in the auditorium, sounds quite natural, seamless, and provides plenty of power without distortion when needed . The IMAX has big speakers in a few key places, and while it can sound big and powerful, does not provide as convincing or natural of a sound-field. For most movies, the expanded scenes feel more like a gimmick, especially when the AR shifts are so jarring. Nolan seems to use them well, but I saw Oppenheimer in both IMAX Laser and standard 70mm, and when given a choice of the image quality benefits of 70mm or the expanded IMAX shots, I'd choose the 70mm.
iMax is 70mm turned sideways. That's why it has such a weird aspect ratio. Nobody shoots in Imax because the camera's are enormous. All of these big releases claiming to be in Imax are bs.
Nolans use of IMAX in selected scenes brought it to the masses - and the public reacted very faborable to it. So then Hollywood did what is always does: cheapen out and not try to understand what the real reason it can work so well if used properly. Nolan uses the "real" IMAX - that is 15perf70 film - a film stock about 9 times larger than traditional 35mm film with a 1.43:1 ratio, allowing for much taller pictures whilst maintaining incredible sharpness and clarity. However, the cameras used for that are very large, very bulky and make an awful lot of sound making them almost unusable for dialogue scenes. This is why Hollywood adopted a digtal IMAX camera. But that one uses the digital equivalent of 65mm film - still far larger than 35mm film but not nearly as large as analog IMAX. And it uses a ratio 1.9:1 rather than 1.43:1. This however doesnt mean the digital one is wider, it means the original analog IMAX (that Nolan uses) is taller. And obviousy now Hollywood is simply using somewhat beefed up digital cameras, film everything in standard 16:9 widescreen (1.77:1 ratio) then they simply cut off a small part top and bottom to get "IMAX" in the digital 1.9:1 ratio and cut off an even bigger part top and bottom to get to the regular 2:4:1 'regular cinema' ratio. Add to that a bunch of rendered CGI rather than practical effects, overuse of green screens, use drab low contrast colors as much as possible and there's your current Hollywood 'blockbuster'. And that doesnt even take into effect pandering and patronizing woke storytelling, endless remakes and soulless cash-grab sequels and it's no longer a surprise why no cares about the oscars anymore and film stars have lost their appeal. It was always a make-believe industry of course, but now the public at large no longer is willing to suspend their disbelief. Hollywood really needs to re-invent itself by firing all writers that think their agenda is more important than actual storytelling and character archs and needs to cuts down on heavily inflated budgets. It is out of constraints where the real innovative gems are born.
Thanks for the technical details here. I agree that often times the visuals often completely outclass the writing, and we are just witnessing a gorgeous, but soulless exercise in technology.
yoo my g chat gpt since when did you start making videos
A little under confident with my voice.
Will start using my voice very soon
@realnerdpapa oh, yeah, sure sure. Hope you don't take that seriously, it's just a joke because I'm so used d to hearing Chatgpt's voice when I talk with it constantly
Same GPT is my go to buddy for every solution nowadays 😂😂
As a VFX Supervisor, screw this AI clickbait. Save your time and skip.
Can technically say it AI generated. But the script was written by me(human)
I went with with my dad and our friends to see Gladiator II in IMAX and when they payed the trailers before the film I noticed how most trailers were your day to day films and not even worth buying a ticket for. If I’m being honest I’m finding a lot of the stuff being pumped out of Hollywood is pure crap because they don’t care about telling an amazing story and reverencing the sound design and quality of the picture. You do have directors like James Cameron or Steven Spielberg who still treat it like a passion affair of the heart and they make it all the worthwhile. Funny though how most things IMAX worthy are being suppressed to streaming while streaming quality stuff is being vomited onto the big screen.
Great vid and being a filmmaker I agree!
MI 4 ghost protocol blew me away on imax
Cinemas should now be more immersive and take advantages of new technology. Spheres or making the audience feel they’re in the movie without 3D glasses
If they'd first rediscover the art of scriptwriting, then why not technical advancement as well
Audience members don’t care…
ITS ALL ABOUT THE STORY
2024 has been a bad year for “big” movies and IMAX is being treated as the new 3D - thank God it’s way better than the previous trend
Slapping IMAX into the marketing to me is another desperate method from Hollywood
😂
The Matrix and Jurassic Park used practical effects. They also used a hell of a lot of digital ones, too.
You misspelled “Segment”.
Every. Single. Time.
IMAX was around for two decades before the Dark Knight. You should have mentioned that!
Yes but it was mainly being used for Documentaries. It didn't transition to the mainstream media until near 2000s
This video caught my eye because of the 'provocative' title, and I thought I might get to hear the sound design I did for the Imax 'Cliffhanger' promo I edited way back in 2014.
WTH?? Imax was around LOOONG before they started partnering with Hollywood on blockbuster film releases. It started out in the 70's with expo & documentary films in special installations and museums - exclusively shot on 70mm film. The filmakers then understood that there was so much visual information to take in that the edits were slower paced to allow the audience to take everything in. They largely stayed away from dramas, but started to incorporate that slowly over the years, still with slower edits, especially with the advent of 3D.
Only after they were bought out by American interests in 1994, did they develop another audience stream by partnering with a few Hollywood studios with selected blockbuster simultaneous releases. Through software developed by Hugh Murray and his team, they increased the effective resolution of scans of Hollywood films so they would be projected onto the larger screen without also increasing the film grain size known as DMR. Now, they're projecting with lasers - albeit at a lower resolution that the 70mm film because that tech isn't quite there for 10+ k resolution yet. Filmakers like Christopher Nolan started shooting big action scenes in Imax for the increased resolution, allowing them to reframe without noticeably losing resolution. He shot Oppenheimer pretty much exclusively in Imax. Imax film cameras (especially 3D ones) are VERY loud. These days many are shot digitally at 8k, some with modified commercially available gear. They are developing a digital camera that will give them the film equivalent resolution of 18k. That will make for some interesting workflows, i'm sure.
Imax was 6 channels of audio from the start, and they developed the 12 channel immersive format only AFTER Dolby Atmos came to market to offer competition in the immersive arena.
You are making a lot of assumptions about filmmaker's choices here... Filmmakers aren't necessarily the ones making the call and what formats the film is going to be distributed in - that's up to the studios and whatever distribution deals, they can arrange.
I go to see films in an Imax theatre that I know will take advantage of both the large screen and the powerful 12 channel immersive sound system. That does not ruin the experience of seeing other types of movies in smaller theatres, and the tickets for those are usually less expensive.
Avatar was not filmed with IMAX cameras, so to put it alongside The Dark Knight is a huge mistake!
Sonic 3 is an exception to this they were honest and said the movie wasn't for IMAX and it was still amazing in standard
I agree with you that studios are using the IMAX brand to sell their big budget films now. Just a couple of things you mentioned in the video that aren't correct. Films that were not shot with IMAX cameras aren't "stretched" to fit the IMAX screen. You probably see the term "Filmed for IMAX" a lot these days and that's because digital film cameras like Arri or Sony were certified by IMAX and when those movies that were "Shot for IMAX" are shown at IMAX theaters, they use the camera's aspect ratio of 1.90:1 or 2.00:1. Recent films like Dune Part 1 and 2 actually shot some scenes in 4:3 or IMAX's aspect ratio of 1.43:1 so those scenes can fill up the real IMAX screens. So, there's no stretching the footage to fill up IMAX screens.
Thanks for pointing out. Will try to be more accurate in the future
Streched or not, it blows up the cinematographer perspective
@@David0Perez0 No it does not. All of the IMAX certified cameras have the resolution to match IMAX's standards and most directors shot the their films with IMAX's aspect ratio in mind. Now, if you're talking about older films, then they have to make some changes to make it fit the IMAX's screen.
It was the with 3D. Every movie was being offered in 3D for a while and it turned out that it was a gimmick for ticket sales. Now you don't see movies being done in 3D. And it was a scam because you always had an extra charge for the 3D glasses. What needs to be done is make great movies and stop with the Gimmicks.
Nothing says sloppy opinion like a bunch of spelling mistakes
And in his conclusion he tells the studios they need to pay attention to detail. 😂
The reason an entire feature film hasn't been shot in Imax yet is that the cameras are large and loud, which means forget capturing on-set dialog without the sound of camera. I suppose with the latest AI (e.g. Adobe Enhanced Speech) the camera noise can be removed. Maybe in Nolan's next film.
The sound is a problem yeah but it's really expensive to shoot even a minute that's one of the primary problem
I think you meant to spell it 'segment.' It's misspelled throughout your clip.
I honestly don't even like the expanded ratio most of the time. (context dependent - youtube will be youtube) Just give me bigger normal ratio screens. I personally find the wider screens more emursive (to an extent) then the taller screens.
As a video editor myself, I can totally get behind bigger and brighter screens and louder speakers, but if the content isnt worthy of filling that then there is no point. There are sometimes that I can get behind a taller aspect ratio, but if the taller aspect ratio does not make the content MORE emursive then there is no point. This also depends on if your content is for web media or not. For example, I edit documentary style for a youtube channel, and we deliver in 4k 16-9, personally though I would love to deliver in 2-1 or slightly narrower, but we craft the entire video to fit the 16-9 so in some cases it would look weird to deliver like that. It all comes down to shooting for how you want to deliver.
yeah first we widened to get to CinemaScope, now we're heightening to get back to the 4:3.
not to mention, jumping from one format to another is horrible. stick to an aspect ratio and do the entire film in the same one. unless changing the ratio is a storytelling technique.
aspect ratio is one thing, resolution is another.
cinema started with 4:3, the widened to 16:9, then widened even more to 21:9 (or similar) to be even more "cinematic, expansive, immersive."
so IMAX is regressing back to something between 4:3 and 16:9 while upping up the resolution. cheat.
You said “let’s take a step back to the early days of IMAX” and you show movies like Avatar 2, The Dark Knight, and Interstellar. That’s most definitely not the beginning of IMAX.
Would have been more helpful to get into specific aspect ratio details and not just talk about the buzz words like “stretched” or “enhanced”
These are movies which made IMAX popular before that it was only documentaries and animated movies. But I’ll make sure to go into more detail in future videos.
if it really is for IMAX, it should be cut (edit) for IMAX. Bigger screen needs longer cut, so that's why seeing movies in IMAX can make you dizzy.
Yes very distracting to the story when aspect ratios are constantly changing! Stick to one ratio!😅
so.. the problem *isn't* IMAX but the marketing of films *not* shot in IMAX (film or digital). And buyer beware. A great story, not spectacle, makes a great film.
GREAT EFFORT BROTHER SUBBED !!!
Thanks Bro 🙏
i wish I could view Imax. I only saw once probably 30 years ago with an school trip. But I think it closed more than 10 years ago.
The next IMAX I think it's about 500km. And I'm not thinking it's worth get a plane or more than a day trip to see a movie.
I mean it's an experience but not worth a plane🙂
I wanted to like this video, but then I realized it wasn’t in iMax.
😂
I think you need to do some research because you said the “expanded ratio” is just standard images on the imax screen when it isn’t. Sometimes it is obviously but with most marvel movies now and even like dune 1&2, they were shot with imax digital cameras with a much larger image size compared to standard image size. And also not even Chris Nolan films his entire movies in imax so the part where you said “if it isn’t fully shot in IMAX don’t advertise in imax” you are foolin yourself quite a bit there
Real imax film is close to 4:3 aspect ratio filmed thru 17/30 reels without cropping out in film outputs
Bro's sure directors are watching his video. 🐸
I agree. But everyone should be able to go to a movie in IMAX. And Without the $20 plus dollar increase in tickets.
Now supposedly the cameras in filming movies and shows are made for IMAX and for enhancing the film.
Look up how much it cost to make IMAX versions.
1000USD per minute with filming and camera rentals, insurance and all
@@realnerdpapa Yep. After it's filmed, if i don't remember wrong it cost 2000$ for each 1 minute of video to prepare the movie or so for IMAX Cinema's.
I love imax but all i need os a good size screen and great sound
Audience members don’t care
Dolby cinema at amc is way better
Very much agree. The only real advantage IMAX once had was true 70mm and VERY large screens in a select few dedicated venues. Now, 70mm releases are very infrequent, and shown only in a select fraction of those dedicated IMAX venues, the rest using laser projection similar to Dolby Cinema. At least at the AMC I go to the laser speckle is noticeable on the IMAX screen, especially with animation, but not on the Dolby Cinema.
For sound, Atmos and the large array of speakers in the Dolby Cinema can place sounds anywhere in the auditorium, sounds quite natural, seamless, and provides plenty of power without distortion when needed . The IMAX has big speakers in a few key places, and while it can sound big and powerful, does not provide as convincing or natural of a sound-field.
For most movies, the expanded scenes feel more like a gimmick, especially when the AR shifts are so jarring. Nolan seems to use them well, but I saw Oppenheimer in both IMAX Laser and standard 70mm, and when given a choice of the image quality benefits of 70mm or the expanded IMAX shots, I'd choose the 70mm.
Wow sounds like bad news 😕 😐 😒
iMax is 70mm turned sideways. That's why it has such a weird aspect ratio. Nobody shoots in Imax because the camera's are enormous. All of these big releases claiming to be in Imax are bs.
I won't watch a comedy in imax
😂😂why would anyone give extra price for a comedy movie unless it's THE ROCK
Not all stories benefit from being shown on an 80 foot screen.
Is this AI
Using AI voice but from next video I'll be using my own voice
@@realnerdpapaseriously???
I didn't realise this is AI voice, it was normal human voice
AI is dangerous man
Nolans use of IMAX in selected scenes brought it to the masses - and the public reacted very faborable to it. So then Hollywood did what is always does: cheapen out and not try to understand what the real reason it can work so well if used properly. Nolan uses the "real" IMAX - that is 15perf70 film - a film stock about 9 times larger than traditional 35mm film with a 1.43:1 ratio, allowing for much taller pictures whilst maintaining incredible sharpness and clarity. However, the cameras used for that are very large, very bulky and make an awful lot of sound making them almost unusable for dialogue scenes.
This is why Hollywood adopted a digtal IMAX camera. But that one uses the digital equivalent of 65mm film - still far larger than 35mm film but not nearly as large as analog IMAX. And it uses a ratio 1.9:1 rather than 1.43:1. This however doesnt mean the digital one is wider, it means the original analog IMAX (that Nolan uses) is taller. And obviousy now Hollywood is simply using somewhat beefed up digital cameras, film everything in standard 16:9 widescreen (1.77:1 ratio) then they simply cut off a small part top and bottom to get "IMAX" in the digital 1.9:1 ratio and cut off an even bigger part top and bottom to get to the regular 2:4:1 'regular cinema' ratio.
Add to that a bunch of rendered CGI rather than practical effects, overuse of green screens, use drab low contrast colors as much as possible and there's your current Hollywood 'blockbuster'. And that doesnt even take into effect pandering and patronizing woke storytelling, endless remakes and soulless cash-grab sequels and it's no longer a surprise why no cares about the oscars anymore and film stars have lost their appeal. It was always a make-believe industry of course, but now the public at large no longer is willing to suspend their disbelief. Hollywood really needs to re-invent itself by firing all writers that think their agenda is more important than actual storytelling and character archs and needs to cuts down on heavily inflated budgets. It is out of constraints where the real innovative gems are born.
Thanks for the technical details here. I agree that often times the visuals often completely outclass the writing, and we are just witnessing a gorgeous, but soulless exercise in technology.
Business in America....Corner cutters🦝
That's why they say they are the Cornerstones of Society😂😂