Re: What Did You Watch? 2024-12-26 (Thursday)

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.