SAG-AFTRA Sued For Witholding Foreign Residuals And … 
Zach Braff Ends $3+M Kickstarter Campaign 
Fox Unscripted TV Czar Mike Darnell To Exit 
FIRST BOX OFFICE: ‘Fast & Furious 6′ Easy … 
NBC Sets Oklahoma Tornado Benefit Concert For May 29 
Cannes: Directors’ Fortnight Honors ‘Les … 
SHOCKER: Tom Cruise Exits ‘Man From … 
A+E Rebuild: BBC’s Jana Bennett To Run Bio And LMN … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Hannibal’ Hits Low, … 
‘Katie’ Shakeup: Rachel Miskowiec Replaces … 
Hammond On Cannes: French Hero Jerry Lewis On His Return To … 
Cannes: Another Jewelry Heist? $2.6M Necklace Missing After … 
Hammond On Cannes: Leo DiCaprio’s Moon Trip Tops … 
Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Universal Makes Seven-Figure Deal For ‘The School For … 
The IMAX blog today details the latest James Bond film Skyfall and its special formatting to show 1/4 more image throughout the entire pic. The 23rd installment of the 007 franchise opens one day early on November 8th in IMAX. Here’s the IMAX info and comparison chart:
The filmmakers worked with the IMAX team in the post-production process to increase the aspect ratio of the film and designed the IMAX presentation of Skyfall to allow audiences to see up to 26% more of the originally captured image.
The technical term for the proportional relationship between an image’s width and its height is called aspect ratio. A film made for CinemaScope 2.41:1, the standard in the industry, is cropped and uses only part of the image the movie camera captures. Like with Skyfall, we provide filmmakers with the ability to optimize their film’s aspect ratio for an IMAX screen during production by shooting with the extremely high-resolution IMAX camera (capable of up to IMAX® 1.43:1—up to 40% more of the picture) or in post-production (capable of up to IMAX® 1.90:1—up to 26% more of the picture). So what does this mean for moviegoers? You get to see much more of the original image, resulting in a full panoramic view that makes you feel part of the action.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
So basically they are presenting Skyfall in “Pan and Scan” like the days of VHS? But on an IMAX screen?
Pan and scan happened when a widescreen aspect ratio was converted to a 4:3 ‘old school’ television ratio and there was LESS of the image on display so various shots would be repositioned (panned and scanned) so they wouldn’t look like, and here comes another highly technical term, ass.
Opening up the matte is a lot different than “Pan and Scan”, since they aren’t “panning”.
I thought that typically 1.85 was matted, but 2.4 was anamorphic. If anamorphic, would there really be anything extra on the top and bottom? If, as someone mentioned below, it was shot digitally, then I suppose it wouldn’t be anamorphic and would have been just a matte all the way down to 2.4. I’m not sure though. Either way, I agree with the comments about composition.
If IMAX is shot 70mm, I understand the added value. Everything else just seems like a lot of money for a small difference, that difference being magnified by clever marketing like we see here.
Skyfall wasn’t shot anamorphically but digitally, as most films increasingly are today. In fact, you’re not losing any image info by “opening up” the frame but, rather, you’re showing image info that gets otherwise eliminated for the widescreen presentation. I know it’s really confusing but 70mm Imax rarely exists anymore.
nope. pan and scan is when they zoom in on the image and cut off sides/top n’ bottom. this is like zooming out from the standard widescreen that will be in non-Imax theaters… so more picture on top and bottom.
Not quite, “pan and scan” was how anamorphic widescreen films were brought to VHS, losing a great deal of the fimage.
Here it’s the reverse. It’s “open matte”, as with most other VHS releases, exposing more of the image (which may or may not ever have been intended to be seen).
No, it’s not Pan&Scan, it’s open matte.
Basically all movies are shot in 1:90, and then black bars added.
So they dont add black bars to IMAX.
Pan and scan meant that they were punching in on the original image and moving around the smaller frame. If anything, the standard presentation would be the closest to a pan and scan because the original IMAX-intended image is cropped.
Full Frame is not the same as Pan and Scan. There’ll be no panning and no scanning.
bring back SHOWSCAN
-RnsW
Well, this is kind of what Peter Jackson is attempting to do by shooting The Hobbit at 48fps (originally conceived as Maxivision48). While not the 60fps of Showscan, it’s close-enough and much easier down-converted to 24fps.
NO! That’s not how it works.
According to the provided graphic, the IMAX reformatting of SKYFALL will show more of the image above and below the traditional “scope” 2.40:1 aspect ratio. There’s no cropping off the sides like with a VHS transfer, and so there’s no panning and scanning here. If anything, the 2.40:1 non-IMAX projection may need to be vertically panned/scanned a bit. But that’s not what you’re griping about.
It’s just a parlor trick, unless Mendes actually framed, made lens selections, and blocked action based on the 1.90:1 aspect ratio. I’ll take a film purposely shot and framed with anamorphic lenses over the full frame super 35mm “leftovers” print. There is a reason the Director shot it that way, it’s a much more dynamic feel. If they had made the decision in pre-pro to shoot IMAX or some hybrid then there would be a valid reason to promote it as an IMAX film, and pay the extra money to see it in an IMAX theater… which is more than likely the reason they boosted it.
Mendes/Deakins actually worked with IMAX pre-pro to see what the movie would look like if filmed at 1.9:1. In other words, it was intentional.
Stanley Kubrick preferred several of his movies to be open matte on home video because he liked the way the extra picture created a subtly different effect–even though he shot the movie to be seen in more traditional aspect ratios like 1.66:1. It’s readily apparent on movies like The Shining, which do indeed look more tunneled in and hence claustrophobic in many scenes such as the shots down the hallway. So basically you can’t make the assertions you’re making (which are just uninformed tech nerd dogma) as a general rule. Sometimes you change the matte on a film and get a pleasant surprise.
Uh, Mike, NO.
Which also kills the original composition made inside the 2.40:1 frame by the cinematographer.
Ask Roger and he will tell you compositions are dead.
This process is not possible if you shoot digital with anamorphic lenses, and if you shoot with spherical lenses for 2.40 center extraction with an eye towards protecting for 1.90 exhibition, you also need budget to finish VFX shots outside 2.40.
Mike: No. I’m simplifying things (leaving out discussion of anamorphic, etc.), but the typical 2.4:1 widescreen aspect ratio of 35mm film is obtained by cutting off the top and bottom of the 35mm frame. This IMAX showing will restore those parts of the frame which are normally cut off. (Note: I don’t know how much of Skyfall was shot in 35mm and how much in IMAX, which is, I believe 70mm.) Pan and scan resulted from taking the cropped 2.4:1 frame and cropping that further to 1.4:1 for broadcast on TV and distribution on video cassette.
I’m sorry, but why would anyone want to see Bond in that shitty, compromised boxy aspect ratio. If you’re shooting widescreen, then you compose for 2.35 and not for 1.90, which makes everything look like TV. 2.35 is a beautiful, cinematic aesthetic and compositions framed for widescreen presentation look like crap when presented in IMAX. DARK KNIGHT RISES had the same problem for me. And the jumping back and forth between 2.35 and 1.90 is nothing but a distraction that pulls you out of the film. Avoid at all costs!
First, Deakins composed a 1:9 frame for Skyfall with IMAX in mind. Second, The Dark Knight Rises actually went back and forth between 1.43 (not 1.9) and 2.35. I found the IMAX scenes (being at a much higher resolution) to be quite breathtaking.
I remember some VHS films were not Pan and Scanned but were Open matted with hillarous results such as mike booms being visible or effect shots ruined.
Hoping someone on the internet will pull some screen grabs.
Skyfall was shot digitally on the Arri Alexa, so the original full captured frame would’ve been 1.78:1, which is then matted to 2.39:1 for scope. This just opens up the frame exactly like what was done with Tron Legacy and Amazing Spiderman (although for those 2 it was only for certain scenes).
There is no genuine IMAX footage in Skyfall. And you are confusing making 2:40 out of a Super 35 frame with matting a 35mm print, which is NOT ever done to create 2:40.
the car in front does have a roof
the drives does have a regular hand
thank you,IMAX and “SKYFALL”
ya get a HAND, for ,ya, a roof and ,ok,ok, a HAND
I thought “pan and scan” was when Jerry would hit Tom over the head with a frying pan and Tom would scan around to figure out where Jerry went.
Either its one or its the other. It can’t be both.
Shots are designed for a specific aspect ratio either the top and bottom are important to the framing and are therefore missing from the wide image or there is unnecessary picture displayed in the IMAX one, ruining it.
The Idea that we’re going backwards towards a more square aspect ratio is a horrible notion.
It CAN be both. In fact, Skyfall has 2 intended AR’s: 2.35:1 and 1.90:1 with the director and DP’s full approval. The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises and MI4 were all shot with varying aspect ratios in mind and they were offered to audiences at varying aspect ratios depending on where you saw them. Avatar, also, was shown in at least two aspect ratios depending on the theater. The idea that a movie has only one intended aspect ratio is no longer true and you can only expect to see more of this in the future. And I agree with you that the scope AR is far more pleasing to the eye than a squarer AR.
Missing info:
Aspect ratio is only part of the quality -
What happens to the resolutions?
Do the IMAX viewers see more source pixels?
Do the IMAX viewers see a digitally scaled picture, or 1:1 (in the non-cropped regions)?
Are there any functional resolution reductions because of any lossy digital compression anywhere in the camera to projector video stream?
It seems to me, that to claim seeing 26% more picture, the viewer must be able to see 26% more source pixels, not necessarily more scope at a reduced resolution
There is so much confusion on this page. This movie was shot on digital so there is no anamorphic discussion to have. The movie can either be cropped to 1.9:1 or 2.4:1. There will be more pixels in the IMAX version because there is less cropping.
As far as which aspect ratio is better, it depends on how it was shot. I disagree that 2.4:1 is automatically better. 4:3 is too square, sure, but 2.4:1 is very wide. I think 1:78, 1:85, and 1:9 are very pleasing as long as the director frames for it. Many directors prefer it. I saw Skyfall in IMAX and it was awesome.
What hasn’t been discussed is the bluray. I hope they use the 1.9 version as it will fill an HDTV better, utalizing more (almost all) screen pixels.