Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: What Did You Watch? 2024-12-26 (Thursday)
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2025 12:47:42 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 166
Message-ID: <vl49lr$2ufi8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vkmsab$3nlnf$1@dont-email.me> <vkn0gl$3pet3$1@dont-email.me>
 <1018383846.757032419.234331.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
 <vl1bf9$2b3ug$1@dont-email.me> <vl28dn$2g4vr$2@dont-email.me>
 <32b9njh1ebmpcvf2r5hgj1d1jf389anupp@4ax.com>
 <1639037550.757442779.219588.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
 <sb4bnjhcs0qsmd2t7khq01qq60400kas69@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2025 21:48:05 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f16f425b40b5c9700ee7758b3502cdef";
	logging-data="3096136"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18T0f6la4cmFYGg/5MNUbZhClST2tSLtyk="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qkWucPOmgNmtl4GL/R7YARygjmk=
In-Reply-To: <sb4bnjhcs0qsmd2t7khq01qq60400kas69@4ax.com>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250101-4, 1/1/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US

On 1/1/2025 11:06 AM, shawn wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 10:39:14 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 18:14:18 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/31/2024 10:00 AM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>>>>> On 12/27/2024 2:50 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/27/2024 10:40 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Barbarella (4K disc) - 1968 sci-fi movie based on a French comic and
>>>>>>> produced by Dino De Laurentiis.  Yes, I know I just watched it last
>>>>>>> year, but I got a brand new 4K upgrade that includes a new Dolby Atmos
>>>>>>> soundtrack and a new audio commentary.  I was torn between listening to
>>>>>>> the new Dolby Atmos track or the audio commentary but settled on the
>>>>>>> Atmos track.  I did notice the surround sound, wasn't really surround,
>>>>>>> but it did have a full sound coming out of the front speakers, which is
>>>>>>> better than the mono sound from the old blu-ray.  There's a remake
>>>>>>> starring Sydney Sweeney in the works, so I'll just have to sit through
>>>>>>> it again with the commentary before the remake.   And thanks to the
>>>>>>> subtitles, I now know that for all these years I've been saying there's
>>>>>>> a kind of taco shell about you, when the line is actually  "There's a
>>>>>>> kind of cockleshell about you."  Someone in this group also suggested I
>>>>>>> watch Danger: Diabolik.  I didn't forget, but it wasn't available for
>>>>>>> free on any of the usual streaming channels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jane Fonda hates that you watched this movie. Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Flash Gordon (4K disc) - 1980 sci-fi movie based on a comic and produced
>>>>>>> by Dino De Laurentiis.  Flash! A-ah! saves everyone one of us from Ming
>>>>>>> the Merciless.  This movie continues to hold up great and is a sight to
>>>>>>> behold in 4K.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As always, I must apologize for my part in this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FLASH GORDON
>>>>>> The Adventure Begins
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was long ago, in the before time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our favorite movie theater, the one with the big flat screen that ran
>>>>>> the movies right, but never got a blockbuster except for Star Trek the
>>>>>> Motion Picture, and opening weekend the transporter replica they left
>>>>>> running in the lobby (some say it was actually the popcorn maker) caught
>>>>>> fire and took the place down, but I digress, ran a BIG ad (in the days
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> the local fishwrap would have pages full of movie ads) for the SNEAK
>>>>>> PREVIEW OF A MAJOR SCIENCE FICTION MOTION PICTURE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I recommended to my viewing accomplice that we attend. He was dubious,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> wondered if I had any idea what the film could be. I pointed out we'd
>>>>>> go to
>>>>>> almost any science fiction movie, and almost any movie at the shiny good
>>>>>> theater, so where was the downside?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We got our preferred seats, 7th row center. The front rows were taped
>>>>>> off,
>>>>>> presumably for visiting VIPs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I go see most movies, especially if they are in IMAX or Dolby Cinema.  I
>>>>> mean, if the production company booked the IMAX or Dolby Cinema
>>>>> screening room, then the movie *must* be good, right?  Right?  I've
>>>>> recently realized that a lot of times when I don't go see a movie, it's
>>>>> often because it's not playing in IMAX or Dolby Cinema.
>>>>>
>>>> You're just a HD snob.
>>>
>>> I wonder if it makes that much of a difference. Only time I saw
>>> something in IMAX format was at Epcot where it was clearly the right
>>> format for that video. Isn't IMAX of a different aspect ratio than the
>>> standard movie format so parts of the video are removed for IMAX that
>>> are visible in the normal aspect ratio.
>>>
>>
>> My BATMAN BEGINS Blu-ray switches back-and-forth between theatrical and
>> IMAX aspect ratios. It’s only a sliver on the top and bottom and I didn’t
>> think I’d even notice but it’s incredibly distracting.
> 
> My experience with IMAX has been limited to a few rips that I
> downloaded both the IMAX and non-IMAX versions to do a comparison.

No. No!  Noooo!!!!!


That is *not* a comparison of the IMAX experience!!!  LOL.

To my ears it's like someone comparing a 70 mm film using super 8 film 
stock and watching both on their black and white TV and saying they 
don't see a difference.

If you want to know what a 70 mm film looks like then you need to watch 
it projected on 70 mm film (or the equivalent).

This part may not have been clear, but if you understand the difference 
in picture quality between 35 mm and 70 mm (and hopefully you do), then 
understand that IMAX is superior picture quality to 70 mm film.  So if 
your typical theater is showing movies in 35 mm (or the digital 
equivalent) but your IMAX screening is showing the movie (filmed in 
IMAX) in quality that is *better* than 70 mm, you are going to have a 
better experience watching the same movie in IMAX.  Regardless of the 
aspect ratio!

On top of that it matters if the movie was shot using IMAX cameras. 
Because you can show a 35 mm movie on an IMAX screen.  It's just going 
to be bigger.  But if the movie was shot in IMAX (or 70 mm), then your 
going to have both the bigger screen and superior picture quality. I 
*hope* this clears that up.  LOL

Otherwise, I'll let Christopher Nolan explain.  He shot Oppenheimer in 
IMAX 70mm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faLPZbVjdpM
At 4 and 49 seconds, look at the *size* of the movie reel.

If you ever get the chance to see an old 70m movie (like 2001) on an 
IMAX screen, it is truly breathtaking.


The other thing I should mention about IMAX is the screen size.  A real 
IMAX screen is going to be significantly larger than your typical movie 
screen.  My local theater is a fake IMAX where the screen is larger than 
Dolby, but not by much.  The Dolby has superior sound which is connected 
to the seats, so the seats shake in sync with the audio.  That's the 
only reason I say I prefer my *local* cinema Dolby over IMAX.

I generally don't go to San Francisco just to see a movie, but whenever 
I'm in San Francisco anyway on a weekend, if there's a new blockbuster 
opening, I try to see it in IMAX at the Metreon since that's a real IMAX 
theater (the screen is 97.6 feet wide by 75.6 feet tall).  I'm lucky 
that Superman was filmed in IMAX and next year I already know I'm going 
to be in San Francisco the day after the movie opens.  So I'll get to 
see it in a real IMAX theater.

Watching these movies that were filmed using IMAX cameras in a proper 
IMAX cinema is *not* at all the same as watching them at your local 
theater on a regular screen.

> What I saw was the IMAX version had some of the right/left side cut
> but expanded the top/bottom slightly. It was enough material lost that
> I preferred the non-IMAX version.
> 
> It's possible I chose the wrong films to compare but they were all big
> budget blockbusters with lots of action so one would think they would
> have taken IMAX into account when filming.

Not just taking IMAX into account, but filming using IMAX cameras.  They 
are very large and very expensive (I think some can only be rented), so 
few movies actually film using them.  Or they will only shoot certain 
scenes in IMAX, for example the aforementioned Batman.

If you look at this list, there really aren't that many IMAX movies that 
come out each year, but each year the list gets bigger:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_films


If you get the chance definitely try and see an IMAX movie that was 
filmed using IMAX cameras.  It's worth the trip.