If it ain't IMAX, it ain't getting shit.

So XD, RPX, ETX, JBX, DFX, whatever the fuck that is out there, will play films like Transformers and Interstellar in a constant 2.40:1 ratio.

I find the changing aspect ratios on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen to be kind of irritating. I don't mind it in principle, but on RoTF it's constantly switching back and forth between shots within the Imax scenes. (Particularly the fight scene in the woods between Optimus Prime and the Decepticons.) I wouldn't mind if the entire scene was in the bigger ratio, but when it switches constantly during a big battle scene it's distracting.

I agree. I'd also add that I would only want to see it if it makes sense within the story. I don't mind Enchanted opening up when they leave the cartoon world and go into the real world, for instance, but switching back and forth is silly. I think it's really best done sparingly, maybe once or twice for the entire film.

I thought the shifting aspect ratio was mind boggling and much more distracting in 'The Dark Knight' - there were little inserts that were shot in 35mm intermerged with the IMAX scenes that was far worse in my mind than what was done in RotF

Actually, I just remembered a case in which constantly changing aspect ratios work (for me, anyway) - when the film is a documentary that includes archive footage shot in 4:3. Presuming the interviews or other modern footage will be 16:9 or 1.85:1, I would rather they just show the old footage with pillarboxing than crop it or (even worse) stretch it.

I agree that this is a problem in The Dark Knight, but it's far worse in Revenge of the Fallen. The Devastator scene switches back and forth from 35mm to IMAX every 3 seconds, sometimes less. Only the shots with Devastator in the frame were filmed in IMAX. Any time the camera cuts away to another character, it reverts to 35mm. Considering Michael Bay's typically spastic editing, the aspect ratio shifts are potentially seizure-inducing.

All this aspect ratio changing sucks for the 0.00001% of us with 2.35:1 constant-image-height projection screens.

Put simply, if a film has multiple aspect ratios thrown in, then I think they should all use the same height as the widest portion (2.35:1 for example). That means all content would have about 800 lines of resolution instead of switching between 800 lines for the 2.35:1 sections and 1080 lines for the other sections. Films like JFK, Scott Pilgrim, and [REC] 3 come to mind here. These are films that are mostly 2.35:1. From what I recall, of those three, only the [REC] 3 Blu-ray makes the 1.78:1 section "bigger" than the 2.35:1 majority of the film.

But, with a film like The Grand Budapest Hotel, which is mostly a "1.37:1" film, I can understand why they'd want the 1.37:1 and 1.85:1 sections to have more resolution and appear "bigger" than the handful of 2.35:1 scenes. I just wish it was an option to have it all within the 2.35:1 frame instead because theatrically, the 2.35:1 section WAS bigger... I think.

I know this will never happen, because I'm clearly in a minority of a minority of people who have this preference, but I'd love if it was somehow an option on titles where the ratio changes throughout the film.

That'd be horrible.

That'd fuck up the intent of the film's imagery. Fuck that.

In the case of IMAX scenes. Be in a bigger constant chunk of a segment though. TDK was fine for me but Bay sucks at IMAX.

I'd have to assume that it still looks better than the regular version; the version I saw at the cinema was pretty incomprehensible. I thought it was the forest set piece which was in IMAX too? When I watched the TDK IMAX scenes on the second disc of the DVD version, I seem to remember some switching, but it does appear that the IMAX sequences shot as much IMAX footage as they could and it wasn't cutting back and forth that much.

On that subject, I sold my DVD version, which of the Blu sets is recommended? The big ultimate collection only has one or two new extras, and I'm led to believe that they're not as impressive as they should be. Frankly, the packaging looks unwieldy, and I don't need the literal toys which come with it. The older boxed set looks like it's in more manageable packaging, still has UV codes and most of the extras.

so I wonder if (and which retailer) will release Transformers: Age of Extinction with the IMAX shot scenes. What is interesting (... and a tad odd) I noticed during today's screening was that for the IMAX presentation, it's actually three AR's that are displayed: 2.35, 1.78 (full screen) and 1.90 ... huh? yup, go figure on that variation.

If the screen is at 1.90, why on earth were scenes being projected at 1.78? That's odd.

no the fix screen AR is 1.78 - certain scenes were full screen, other scenes at 2.35 and then for other scenes the image there was a different aspect ratio that was inbetween the two - I was definitely noticing it and looking for it, so as to actually confirm what I was seeing... it's there and it's VERY odd.

It's not that IMAX doesn't care for quality control. They're an independent company and have always adapted their tech to the physical demands of the venues where they built auditoriums. Literally every 70mm IMAX booth is unique, with no two the same, even if they're using the same projectors, platters, or sound systems. Given that IMAX was retrofitting existing theaters for digital, it's not surprising that they had differing ratios.

That is really bizarre. If the screen AR is 1.78, I'd get projecting the IMAX scenes in that, as it's the full screen size, though you'd have to crop a bit from 1.44. And I'd likewise get switching to 2.35, since that scope ratio was presumably what the non-IMAX footage was shot it. By I can't quite get why there'd be a third, in between ratio. That is really weird.

well I'm assuming Transformers 4 was not released in 15/70 IMAX - right? because if so, there'd be another version that displayed an even taller AR: 4:3. But gathering from imdb states, and imdb is not entirely 100% accurate: there are 1.90 scenes, but there are also 1.78 AR scenes - I'm sort of surprised no one else has noticed this - yes it's subtle, but once you notice it, you (well, I) start to watch for it more.

I remember during the IMAX-D presentation of 'Wrath of the Titans' one special effects shot got displayed at 2.35 during a fight scene - it was jarring to suddenly see black bars all of a sudden and switch back to 1.85 - I did a double take. (this was obviously fixed for the home video version where as the whole scene is retained at 1.85)

I think the lesson to take away from this is never watch the Transformers sequels.

The cutting back and forward between the imax ratio & 2:35 in T4 was so much that it felt like the only reason he'd cut to 2:35 is for either a closeup of an actor or so a lens flare could show up.

If the blu ray is only in the imax format, some are gonna be pissed

I just saw Transformers on a 1.4:1 screen this past Sunday night and the CONSTANT changing from 1.7:1, 1.9:1, and 2.4:1 nearly caused me to have a brain aneurism.

I wonder if the OP will complain about the Grand Budapest Hotel, which goes from 1:78, 1:33 and 2:35

However, The Grand Budapest Hotel does it in a more natural way.

1930s = 1.33:1
1960s = 2.35:1
"Present" = 1.85:1

Unlike say like Transformers: Age of Extinction which has absolutely no rhyme or reason to the aspect ratio changes.

One of the successes of TDKR's aspect ratio changes is Nolan shot entire sequences in IMAX rather than portions of sequences in IMAX unlike TDK.

I got the impression that he shot most of what he could in IMAX for TDK and then had to fill in the gaps.

The BD of GBH we have at work only lists the AR as 1.85. Misprint, or are there multiple versions?

With The Dark Knight, Nolan used IMAX for establishing shots (most of which admittedly go by too quickly) and for the big action set-pieces.

For The Dark Knight Rises, Nolan's strategy was that if he could get an IMAX camera into the location, he would use the IMAX camera as much as he could. That movie has very little artistic purpose behind which shots are IMAX and which are 35mm, and a number of scenes distractingly switch back and forth from shot-to-shot for no reason at all.

Everything is framed within the 1.78:1 frame, so that's technically correct, although the majority of the film is 1.37:1.

The 1.37:1 scenes (most of the film) are pillarboxed in the 1.78:1 frame.
The 1.85:1 scenes may be framed at 1.78:1 (I really don't know), so there might be tiny letterbox bars.
The 2.35:1 scenes are letterboxed in the 1.78:1 frame. Of all the scenes, I think there's the least amount of these.

I'd have preferred a CIH option, but that's me. That's how I remember it being projected, but my memory isn't exactly perfect.