Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Behind The Lies Of The 'Skyfall: See It In IMAX' Advertising Campaign

  1. #1
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    12,790

    Default Behind The Lies Of The 'Skyfall: See It In IMAX' Advertising Campaign

    Today's the day that Skyfall, the latest and arguably greatest James Bond film in all of fifty years is released across the US... at least, on IMAX screens. The 'standard screen' release is happening tomorrow.

    This isn't the only way that Sony have bedded in with IMAX for this release, however. They've teamed up for some pretty wide-reaching promotional activities.

    Let's consider the materials IMAX have released online as part of their campaign to encourage Skyfall viewers to choose their premium-price and supposedly premium-experience format.

    Here's a comparison image that they sent out to various blogs and sites like Bleeding Cool.

    The argument they're making here is simple: IMAX gives you more.That's always been their case: bigger, more. But I'm afraid it doesn't wash.

    Skyfall is being released to standard screens in the 2.40:1 aspect ratio. This is a widely used format, but it's not universal. Many films are released in the narrow 1.85:1 or 1.78:1, something like the 16:9 shape of your modern TV.

    If Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins had wished, they could very easily have filmed and released Skyfall in that aspect ratio. But they didn't.

    What Mendes and Deakins did is compose the images for the 2.40:1 frame, knowing this is how the film would be seen in the vast majority of cinemas - ie. the non-IMAX ones - and then, eventually, on its DVD and Blu-ray release. This was the paradigm they were working to, and which they had chosen to best suit this material and the aesthetic they wanted.

    But the Alexa camera that Deakins was using to shoot the film records a 16:9 image. This means that, while the filmmakers would be cutting some of this off in postproduction to reach their desired 2.40:1 ratio, the data would still exist. And so it is that Sony were able to set up an agreement whereby the film would screen in 1.9:1 at IMAX cinemas.

    The image above is deceitful in that it's a specially chosen image that makes the 2.40:1 sample look cramped and claustrophobic, and the 1.9:1 image look better composed. They're even showing off the full-height 1.43:1 frame size of a film shot natively for IMAX - the same shape of your old TV set that you couldn't wait to get rid of - though this isn't relevant in Skyfall's case as the film is not being released in that format.

    And, importantly, that is not an example from Skyfall, though it is being used to market the benefits of seeing Skyfall in IMAX format. They've cherry picked, if not designed, an image that seems to suit their case and not, as would be honest, used a sample from the film in question.

    Of course, if you look at Roger Deakins' actual Skyfall images in 2.40:1, they look great. Here are eight screen captures from one of the trailers.



    The black area in each of those images is the approximate difference the 2.40:1 and a 16:9 image, very close to the IMAX 1.9:1 release. The images have been very clearly designed for the 2.40:1 frame. Do you think they'd benefit from somebody putting extraneous information in place of the black space there?

    So, yes, in the IMAX version, the image has been opened up so you get a bit more Sky at the top and a bit more Fall at the bottom, but you're not getting closer to the filmmaker's best compositions. You're gettingfurther away.

    Many of us remember the era of pan-and-scan VHS films all too well. TV sets were, until really rather recently, made with screens of a 4:3 aspect ratio. When a film shot in 1.78:1, 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 was released onto VHS, this would require the modification of the image to fit the frame.

    Some of the time this would mean that information from the sides of the image were cut off. Other times it would mean that the "mattes were unpicked" and more, if not all, of the image from the original negative would be used to fill the screen. Oftentimes this resulted in booms appearing at the top of the shot - a very visible clue that something was up, so this kind of mistake was widely noted.

    Other times the unpicking just resulted in a baggy, badly composed image. Extra headroom and extra space at the bottom of the frame change the image from how it was originally conceived into something else.

    All you have to acknowledge is that films have close-ups, midshots and longshots of all kinds of sizes, designed by the filmmakers, and that this framing is chosen specifically to help convey the meaning or feeling of any given moment. Then you will realise that, actually, just opening up an image and changing this framing is making a significant alteration to the film and how accurately the intended tone, if not message, is being conveyed.

    Film fans were up in arms about the alterations made to films on VHS. Geeks like me made sure we bought the widescreen releases of videos whenever possible. The black bars at the top and the bottom of the screen didn't bother us, because we knew we were getting the film in its purest format. We were seeing the compositions that the filmmakers had worked hard on. The images we were seeing were the ones designed to underline and convey the story and emotions of the scenes.

    Now, with IMAX, so many of the same nerds are rushing to embrace alterations that similarly distort the original image to fit a shape of screen it was not initially designed for. I dare say they're impressed by the sheer size of the image, and a little drunk on that "scale" and so-called "immersiveness." They've been aggressively marketed to, as well - not just in the case of Skyfall, but in general. During Comic-Con this summer I was driven off to an IMAX for drinks and canapes and schmoozing before being shown the premiere of Skyfall's IMAX trailer. Money was being spent on trying to win me over.

    Below is a video that IMAX have made as part of this same, ongoing Skyfall campaign. They have Sam Mendes offer up a lot of platitudes for the form - but let's not forget that every actor goes around singing the praises of every film they appear in, and that the web is filled with "featurettes" in which folk talk up every last aspect of the films they're associated with. It's more telling that every single clip they use here is in the wider, non-IMAX aspect ratio. They're selling a cinematic experience with precisely composed, co-ordinated images that you won't even get as part of that experience.



    Skyfall was not fine tuned for IMAX, it was fine tuned for 2.40:1 screening. The 1.9:1 format is an afterthought, almost a compromise, something that the filmmakers had to keep in the back of their mind when deciding where to put the boom.

    Size isn't everything. I recommend you see Skyfall on a good, big 2.40:1 screen where you can appreciate Mendes and Deakins specific, effective use of the frame.

  2. #2
    Exceedingly Cool BigAl6ft6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    147

    Default

    I'm gonna see it in the Digital IMAX format, everyone calls it "lieMax" but I think it's a disservice to the format simply because even if it's not a true IMAX experience it's still a larger and more immersive screen than most big box cineplexes. Saw Dark Knight Rises, Spider-Man & Prometheus & Cloud Atlas on it and they benefited from it. Even though they're just basically bigger than most "standard" size screen and not a true IMAX format, I still think they're pretty darn nifty.

  3. #3
    RichVince
    Guest

    Default

    This is an unfortunate example of a reviewer trying to impress us with his knowledge when he does not fully understand what he is talking about.

    While Brendon is correct that the ad he cites in the beginning is an exaggerated example of the differences in the images, I think most people realize that it was selected to make a point only. He then goes on to argue how bad of an idea the IMAX concept is by referencing 40 year-old "pan and scan" techniques without shedding any light at all on the reasons for the opening up of the image.

    The 2.40:1 and more common 2.35:1 aspect ratios are anamorphic "widescreen" processes. They were originally invented to expand the width of the image to better take advantage of your peripheral vision when presenting expansive landscapes. Unfortunately, this experience is lost in most modern theatres because they have narrower screens. Rather than the side masking opening up on anamorphic (scope) films to reveal a wider image they only use part of the height of the 1.86:1 standard (flat) screen. Yes, he is correct that by doing so the composition of the 2.40:1 aspect ratio is retained, although it is hardly the widescreen experience the directors intends either.

    But none of this is how the true IMAX experience functions.

    IMAX auditoriums are designed to fill your field of vision so the framing disappears. A lot of people tend to perceive IMAX as just being about a "big" screen. In reality, IMAX has very little to do with that. It is about creating a viewer to screen relationship that more closely resembles what you would see as you look at the world.

    It is also a "tall screen" format instead of a widescreen format. That is, the top portion of the screen should disappear above your field of vision. The lower portion should drop below your feet, which is why the seating areas are so steeply sloped. Ideally, the horizon line should occur 1/3 of the distance from the bottom of the screen, which is where it appears in your field of vision as you walk down the street. Seats are arranged so that you are so close to the screen that the sides reach your peripheral vision.

    Problems arise because in the past several years it has become popular to convert commercial anamorphic films into IMAX prints. The public has been responsive to this both because of the reputation of IMAX and the desire to see action films on bigger screens. But this is actually a pretty undesirable experience, despite Brendon's seeming preference for it. Essentially, showing an anamorphic film in IMAX is an attempt to force a square peg into a round hole. "Skyfall" is actually an important experiment to better solve this problem.

    The problem is most obvious in close-ups, where the experience resembles talking to someone so close you are looking up their nostrils. Brendon writes:

    "All you have to acknowledge is that films have close-ups, midshots and longshots of all kinds of sizes, designed by the filmmakers, and that this framing is chosen specifically to help convey the meaning or feeling of any given moment. Then you will realise that, actually, just opening up an image and changing this framing is making a significant alteration to the film and how accurately the intended tone, if not message, is being conveyed."

    This is dead wrong. A close-up in IMAX should actually be a full body shot or close to it at most. The traditional close-up should never be used. The traditional film language and framing that Brendon is trying to impose on IMAX doesn't work and should never be used.

    One of the examples he uses in his article is the close-up of the back of Daniel Craig's head, looking into the background. Even if the entire IMAX screen is not filled, this shot will create the experience of the viewer having their nose in his hair! Ideally the camera should be pulled back for IMAX so that you see his entire body, with his feet dropping below your field of vision. Filling in the top and bottom of the screen in "Skyfall" is the director's way of more closely creating that experience for the IMAX version. We'll have to see if the technique pulls the camera back far enough.

    Another example is the shot Brendon uses of the camera looking up at Craig leaping off a building. Yes, it is framed fine for 2.40:1. BUT the experience is lost if the IMAX screen is not filled. One option would be to crop the sides a la pan and scan and fill the IMAX screen. But this would take away from the impression of jumping from a height. By adding sky above and more of the building below the image, the director is taking advantage of the screen height to give the viewer a better sense of scale and the distance he is falling.

    A great example of the difference between anamorphic widescreen and IMAX is the scene in Dark Knight Rises", which was actually filmed in IMAX, where we see Batman standing on top a skyscraper looking over the city. The cityscape drops below our feet, creating a sense of vertigo that Batman must also be experiencing. That would have been a very different experience if the 2.40:1 framing had been kept on the IMAX screen.

    The point that this article misses is that the standard 2:40:1 version of "Skyfall" and the IMAX version are two entirely different films, intended to create different experiences. Neither may be considered the director's only vision. As such, it is a very important experiment for the industry.

  4. #4
    Wrote the Book on Cool
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichVince View Post
    A great example of the difference between anamorphic widescreen and IMAX is the scene in Dark Knight Rises", which was actually filmed in IMAX, where we see Batman standing on top a skyscraper looking over the city. The cityscape drops below our feet, creating a sense of vertigo that Batman must also be experiencing. That would have been a very different experience if the 2.40:1 framing had been kept on the IMAX screen.
    It's not often that I agree with Brendon, but surely the difference there is that the shot in question was actually filmed for IMAX on IMAX cameras, unlike Skyfall. The blurays of The Dark Knight (and presumably Rises will do the same) actually alter the aspect ratio between IMAX and non-IMAX shots because they were intentionally framed differently. On the other hand, Skyfall was shot on non-IMAX cameras for projection in a 2.40:1 aspect ratio and they're opening up the shots to fill up a bit more of the IMAX screen. You talk about how a full body shot is the equivalent of a close up on an IMAX screen, but opening up the image on Skyfall is just going to result in seeing a bit more around the edges of a close up, it's not going to turn a close up into a full body shot.

  5. #5
    Bleeding Cool toodoor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Winchester, UK
    Posts
    12,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfolwell View Post
    It's not often that I agree with Brendon, but surely the difference there is that the shot in question was actually filmed for IMAX on IMAX cameras, unlike Skyfall. The blurays of The Dark Knight (and presumably Rises will do the same) actually alter the aspect ratio between IMAX and non-IMAX shots because they were intentionally framed differently. On the other hand, Skyfall was shot on non-IMAX cameras for projection in a 2.40:1 aspect ratio and they're opening up the shots to fill up a bit more of the IMAX screen. You talk about how a full body shot is the equivalent of a close up on an IMAX screen, but opening up the image on Skyfall is just going to result in seeing a bit more around the edges of a close up, it's not going to turn a close up into a full body shot.
    Yeah, Brendon wasn't criticising Imax, just this instance of fake Imax.
    Warning, the above post may contain traces of sarcasm, or have been written in an environment where it may have come into contact with sarcasm.

    My name is Steven Tudor, nice to meet you.

    Bring back signatures!!!!!!!

  6. #6
    VP in Charge of Cool FunkyGreenJerusalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    Bravo Brendon!
    God forbid that we treat a film as something other than a commodity, or demand that people are a bit more honest in their marketing.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigAl6ft6 View Post
    Saw Dark Knight Rises, Spider-Man & Prometheus & Cloud Atlas on it and they benefited from it.
    Are you sure they benefitd? Did you check the version you saw against the one the filmmaker intended in a normal theatre, or you just saw it at the IMAX and enjoyed it there?

    Quote Originally Posted by RichVince View Post
    This is an unfortunate example of a reviewer trying to impress us with his knowledge when he does not fully understand what he is talking about.
    Where as this feels like an unfortunate example of a marketing person pretending to be a commenter, who doesn't actually stick to facts or fair arguments.

    While Brendon is correct that the ad he cites in the beginning is an exaggerated example of the differences in the images, I think most people realize that it was selected to make a point only.
    Nope. Nothing about that image says it isn't from the film - the choice of image, a car chase, was clearly picked as it looked like it could be from a Bond film.
    If there was a significant advantage to be found in the IMAX version, actual shots from the film would have been used - with Daniel Craig front and centre -why wouldn't they?

    You also left out justifying why in all advertising for IMAX, images of the WS release are used, and not of the IMAX version.
    Hmmm, the comparison shot used isn't from the film, and shots actually from the film in the IMAX ads are from the WS version - why would that be if the IMAX framing actually adds as much as is claimed?

    But none of this is how the true IMAX experience functions
    IMAX experience? Good job staying on brand!

    This is dead wrong. A close-up in IMAX should actually be a full body shot or close to it at most. The traditional close-up should never be used. The traditional film language and framing that Brendon is trying to impose on IMAX doesn't work and should never be used.
    Widescreen compositions and IMAX compositions aren't interchangeable?
    So then Mendes must have shot for one, and not the other. And all non-Imax promotion evidence points to him not using IMAX film language to tell the story.
    If it was truly two different films as you later claim, would Mendes have not shot the film twice, one using traditional film language and one using IMAX film language?
    That would have been an important experiment for the industry.
    Another example is the shot Brendon uses of the camera looking up at Craig leaping off a building. Yes, it is framed fine for 2.40:1. BUT the experience is lost if the IMAX screen is not filled.One option would be to crop the sides a la pan and scan and fill the IMAX screen. But this would take away from the impression of jumping from a height. By adding sky above and more of the building below the image, the director is taking advantage of the screen height to give the viewer a better sense of scale and the distance he is falling.
    Yes, the directors intended composed shot is changed for IMAX - adding in bits he had chosen to leave out.
    This is what Brendon is saying - the intended version is changed to suit the imax's different proportions.

    A great example of the difference between anamorphic widescreen and IMAX is the scene in Dark Knight Rises", which was actually filmed in IMAX, where we see Batman standing on top a skyscraper looking over the city. The cityscape drops below our feet, creating a sense of vertigo that Batman must also be experiencing. That would have been a very different experience if the 2.40:1 framing had been kept on the IMAX screen.
    Another great example is "The Dark Knight Rises", which apparently had scenes shot in/for IMAX. This NY Times article has a comparison of shots, from the widescreen and the IMAX.
    (You'll note that instead of just showing frame comparison, they make the image of the WS much smaller - if IMAX actually added anything other than size, they wouldn't be scared to show the two frame at equal proportions.)
    Unluckily for IMAX though, you can see the lie to the claim that Nolan composed shots for IMAX as well - there's no way anyone with a basic grasp of film grammar, let alone film professionals, would leave that much head space, especially not in this shot.
    Why I am I certain that the IMAX headspace was not intended in the shot - because the shot is declaring how imposing Batman is. In the Widescreen version the shot is perfectly balanced and centred around him. The smoke in the background blocks out the top of the buildings, making him the largest object in the frame (which communicates the effect of his presence).
    In the IMAX version, not only isn't he that imposing as he isn't balanced and is lower in the frame, we can see over the top of the smoke, and now the buildings surrounding them become the biggest object in frame, shifting the balance of power.

    Film language 101 there, mate. Nolan uses it in WS, but not in IMAX.

    The point that this article misses is that the standard 2:40:1 version of "Skyfall" and the IMAX version are two entirely different films, intended to create different experiences. Neither may be considered the director's only vision. As such, it is a very important experiment for the industry.
    But that's not true - shots were composed for widescreen, and then converted to IMAX, which is Brendan's chief complaint, people going to IMAX are getting an different "experience", not seeing the film the multi-award winning director and director of photography crafted.
    It's not a different film, Apocalypse Now and Apocalypse Now: Redux are entirely different films. Sky fall IMAX is the exact same film except bits the director didn't want on the edge of frame are put back in, only to meet the requirements of a secondary screen size - hence the 4:3 Pan-scan comparison at the start, it's all changing what was intended to make extra money on a different shaped screen.

    This is may be an important experiment for the marketing side of the industry, seeing if they can get people to shell out more, like a film shot in 2D being changed to 3D on release. That's all it is.
    Last edited by FunkyGreenJerusalem; 11-09-2012 at 05:18 AM.

  7. #7
    Moderator Mad_Man_Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    /members/mad_man_moon/albums/
    Posts
    13,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigAl6ft6 View Post
    it's still a larger and more immersive .....
    I found IMAX on the two times I have watched it to be way less immersive.

    There are far more people, making way more noise, with a much more open area of 'things to distract M_M_M'.
    It's sad, but the best theatre for watching film is the one you build at home.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyGreenJerusalem View Post
    But that's not true - shots were composed for widescreen, and then converted to IMAX...
    While I also question whether this taller IMAX picture is really the filmmakers' preference, talking like the bigger image was derived by the studio completely after the filmmakers had their input isn't really true either. There are so many post-production things done to the image -- special effects, color timing changes -- that the director and cinematographer are still involved in, and I can't believe that they went through that whole process with no intention of having it in the 1.9:1 format. It's not like Sony went back to the raw digital images themselves; they were given this larger image by the filmmakers.

    From Deakins himself:

    We shot 2.35:1, but because of the size of the chip, you've got so much space top and bottom that basically I shot it for both formats... the IMAX was clean and the image quality is fantastic because you're using the full size of the chip.
    One could argue that he's at least somewhat covering up for the marketing decisions, but I have a hard time believing that the bigger image was never their intention.

  9. #9
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    12,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichVince View Post
    The 2.40:1 and more common 2.35:1 aspect ratios are anamorphic "widescreen" processes. They were originally invented to expand the width of the image to better take advantage of your peripheral vision when presenting expansive landscapes. Unfortunately, this experience is lost in most modern theatres because they have narrower screens. Rather than the side masking opening up on anamorphic (scope) films to reveal a wider image they only use part of the height of the 1.86:1 standard (flat) screen. Yes, he is correct that by doing so the composition of the 2.40:1 aspect ratio is retained, although it is hardly the widescreen experience the directors intends either.
    I suggest people see the film in a large 2.40:1 auditorium. I don't sugest they see it in screen 13 of their local multiplex. If we're selecting an optimum viewing experience here - you with IMAX, me with 2.40:1 - then I suggest a proper 'scope screen. Added bonus: my preferred format here doesn't charge a premium.


    Quote Originally Posted by RichVince View Post
    IMAX auditoriums are designed to fill your field of vision so the framing disappears. A lot of people tend to perceive IMAX as just being about a "big" screen. In reality, IMAX has very little to do with that. It is about creating a viewer to screen relationship that more closely resembles what you would see as you look at the world.
    The compositions in Skyfall, as in most films, use the edges of the frame as part of their pictorial quality. The edges are part of how the image communicates. Removing them dampens, if not outright kills, that part of their visual language.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichVince View Post
    That is, the top portion of the screen should disappear above your field of vision. The lower portion should drop below your feet, which is why the seating areas are so steeply sloped. Ideally, the horizon line should occur 1/3 of the distance from the bottom of the screen, which is where it appears in your field of vision as you walk down the street. Seats are arranged so that you are so close to the screen that the sides reach your peripheral vision.
    In many IMAX auditoria you will find that many if not most seats mean that the screen goes way beyond an audience member's peripheral vision. That's an argument for another time, but the fact is this - many audience members can't even see the full extent of what was in the original 2.40:1 frame when we do include their visual periphery.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichVince View Post
    But this is actually a pretty undesirable experience, despite Brendon's seeming preference for it. Essentially, showing an anamorphic film in IMAX is an attempt to force a square peg into a round hole. "Skyfall" is actually an important experiment to better solve this problem.
    No, I don't have a preference for screening an anamorphic film in IMAX at all. Nowhere did I even hint at such a thing. 'Scope films, both flat and anamorphic, are typically designed well enough, precisely enough, that they should be seen on a screen of that shape.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichVince View Post
    This is dead wrong. A close-up in IMAX should actually be a full body shot or close to it at most. The traditional close-up should never be used. The traditional film language and framing that Brendon is trying to impose on IMAX doesn't work and should never be used.
    But it IS the film language and framing that Mendes and Deakins DID use. Adding a bit on the top and bottom doesn't suddenly recompose all the images in a way that makes them 'IMAX-suitable,' for want of a better term. They are using a film language partly based on these shot sizing principles. This all simply supports my case, not yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichVince View Post
    One of the examples he uses in his article is the close-up of the back of Daniel Craig's head, looking into the background. Even if the entire IMAX screen is not filled, this shot will create the experience of the viewer having their nose in his hair! Ideally the camera should be pulled back for IMAX so that you see his entire body, with his feet dropping below your field of vision. Filling in the top and bottom of the screen in "Skyfall" is the director's way of more closely creating that experience for the IMAX version. We'll have to see if the technique pulls the camera back far enough.
    The shot in the IMAX version is just the same thing with more headroom and more below the lower frame edge. Like every one of the unpicked shots in the whole thing, this isn't a recomposed, reframed image in the IMAX film - it's one designed for 2.40:1 with a bit more just tossed on.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichVince View Post
    Another example is the shot Brendon uses of the camera looking up at Craig leaping off a building. Yes, it is framed fine for 2.40:1. BUT the experience is lost if the IMAX screen is not filled. One option would be to crop the sides a la pan and scan and fill the IMAX screen. But this would take away from the impression of jumping from a height. By adding sky above and more of the building below the image, the director is taking advantage of the screen height to give the viewer a better sense of scale and the distance he is falling.
    If you want to create a sense of jumping from height, putting loads of airspace above the individual jumping isn't exactly going to do you any favours. It conveys a sense of jumping from "part way up." Adding more distance below could contribute, but more sky above can cut in just the opposite direction. This is, of course dependent on some specifics of the angle used - but that hasn't been changed for the IMAX version. It's the same shot, just unpicked.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichVince View Post
    A great example of the difference between anamorphic widescreen and IMAX is the scene in Dark Knight Rises", which was actually filmed in IMAX, where we see Batman standing on top a skyscraper looking over the city. The cityscape drops below our feet, creating a sense of vertigo that Batman must also be experiencing. That would have been a very different experience if the 2.40:1 framing had been kept on the IMAX screen.
    That's got absolutely nothing to do with the case of Skyfall. At all.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichVince View Post
    The point that this article misses is that the standard 2:40:1 version of "Skyfall" and the IMAX version are two entirely different films, intended to create different experiences. Neither may be considered the director's only vision. As such, it is a very important experiment for the industry.
    You say that as if an IMAX version couldn't possibly have been mandatory and that Mendes and Deakins gave the IMAX version all of the consideration they gave to the 2.40:1 version.

    If that was the case you'd think they'd at least talk openly and at length, perhaps unprovoked about IMAX. As it happens, the whole release was barely something that anybody had anything to say about during the Skyfall press junket interviews I took part in. And Deakins has spent a lot of time and energy and enthusiasm talking about the Alexa camera he used for the film - but never in respect of it being exiting as it allows for IMAX, that being an objective of his.

  10. #10
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    12,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willdude View Post
    While I also question whether this taller IMAX picture is really the filmmakers' preference, talking like the bigger image was derived by the studio completely after the filmmakers had their input isn't really true either. There are so many post-production things done to the image -- special effects, color timing changes -- that the director and cinematographer are still involved in, and I can't believe that they went through that whole process with no intention of having it in the 1.9:1 format. It's not like Sony went back to the raw digital images themselves; they were given this larger image by the filmmakers.

    From Deakins himself:



    One could argue that he's at least somewhat covering up for the marketing decisions, but I have a hard time believing that the bigger image was never their intention.
    Deakins has said, multiple times, that they decided to shoot 'flat' and on the Alexa before anybody raised IMAX. They had their plan in place. Then IMAX was brought up, and the decisions already gelled with it.

    Obviously, from here on out he was 'protecting' for IMAX. But a well-designed 'scope image can't just be unpicked to become an equivalently well-designed IMAX image. It doesn't work that way. The difference between a well designed 'scope shot and a well-designed IMAX shot isn't just bolting a bit more on the top and bottom.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •