Something Bitchy This Way Comes

Greece suspends asylum applications for migrants from North Africa by Laura Gozzi (BBC).

Greece passes draconian legislation with prison terms for rejected asylum seekers by Helena Smith (The Guardian).

Greek coastguard threw migrants overboard to their deaths, witnesses say by Lucile Smith and Ben Steele (BBC).

Bill on Detention Centres for Asylum Seekers Published by Jelena Ćirić (Iceland Review).

Italy sends 40 rejected asylum seekers to Albania by Karl Sexton (DW).

Record number of migrants, refugees reached Canary Islands by sea in 2024 (Al Jazeera).

saw this on Insta and the idea that people who are anti-AI are just using it anyway like... willing to give it up? I ACTIVELY AVOID THAT SHIT BUD! WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT?

ALSO

I am so tired of this discourse. People feel like they are "missing out." But they don't understand the point of immersive composition.

IMAX is a full immersion experience. The large screen is designed to fill your entire field of view. This gives you a sense that your are *in* the movie. But if you outstretch your arm and hold up your thumb, that is roughly the area you can focus on in a given moment. You are not meant to see every detail on screen. You are physically unable to. But if the director did their job correctly, they draw your focus to the subjects on screen and not the top of a building.

Directors compose for the smallest theater screen and then fill in the periphery for other aspect ratios. The idea is that whatever screen you view the movie on, it will fill your entire field of view. If they showed this movie in 4:3 on a wider screen, you would have black voids on either side of your vision. Everything would be smaller. It would be less immersive.

@stepmuppet

I don't understand why you have to be such a jerk and can't have a normal conversation about this, but I am happy to explain why I don't think your argument holds up.

Nolan and other IMAX filmmakers use a composition technique called "center punch."

They literally have guides on their camera viewfinder so they can center the action of their compositions. This ensures that no matter what aspect ratio the movie is viewed at, the important narrative information is contained in that center area.

You talk about half the "story" being missing, but that is not the case.

When you see the examples of IMAX compared to "normal" it is highly misleading.

They are comparing the IMAX version to the ultra widescreen version. That is roughly a 40% crop and looks very dramatic for social media clicks. But this widescreen version is one of the rarer formats to see the movie in. And again, with center-punch composition, every important storytelling detail is in the frame.

While it is true that there are a limited number of 1.43 IMAX theaters in the world, there are hundreds of 1.91 IMAX theaters. That version only loses about 10% from the top and 10% from the bottom.

Let's compare those two aspect ratios and see how much is missing.

Let's take a look at just the material that is cropped out.

So, you can't see a random bit of wall at the top and you can't see his hands. Are his hands doing any storytelling in this scene? Is it possible you are supposed to be looking at his facial expression and not his hands?

What about the fire scene? What is missing there?

Some orange glowiness at the top and I think that might be a tiny guy running away.

Do you watch movies just in the periphery? Are you scanning intently at the top and bottom of the frame for random bits of wall and fire?

How would seeing the top of that wall drastically change your experience of the movie?

Do me a favor. Extend your arm and give a thumbs up. Look at the area your thumb covers in your visual field. That is called the foveal region. That is roughly the area that you can see in sharp focus in any given moment. Everything beyond that is blurry peripheral vision.

If you are looking at a character's face, everything beyond that blurs out into the periphery. You can scan around and build a larger picture in your mind, like stitching a panorama (that's how we absorb big action scenes), but there is only so much we can see at one time. And the 1.43 IMAX screen is actually taller than our visual field. So your human biology ends up cropping a portion of the image as well.

Are you mad at your eyeballs too for missing out on 10% of the story?

My point is, if the entire 100+ foot IMAX screen were filled from edge to edge with important narrative details, there is no human being who could absorb that information. So all of the important bits are in the center punch area and everything outside of that is peripheral details meant to fill out your visual field and immerse you.

Immersion is not about seeing every detail. VR headsets work by making sure every bit of your vision is filled with the game environment. The domed Omnimax theaters at science museums made sure that no matter what direction you looked, you would see the screen. You are trying to trick the brain into thinking you are inside what you are watching. If you ever saw one of those Omnimax presentations, it felt almost like it was a theme park ride just by tricking your brain. And you were never turning your head like an owl to see whatever was at the very edges of the screen.

BUT... if you don't fill your visual field, that immersion breaks down.

Look at your phone screen and then look at how much of your visual field is not your phone.

Look at your TV screen and look at how much of your visual field is not the TV.

The entire point of a big screen experience is to fill as much of your visual field as possible. That's what makes it special. That's why you travel to a theater and pay extra for tickets and popcorn. That's why you don't want giant black voids at the edge of your vision.

You claim Nolan is gatekeeping, but he and his cinematographer had designed the movie from day one to be compatible with all movie screens. Every single frame was composed to work with widescreen formats.

You say he had no reason to film on IMAX other than to flex?

Film, as a recording medium, was dying. It's hard to work with. It's expensive. And many modern directors aren't even given the option to shoot on film. Nolan making a big spectacle by shooting on the best film available is keeping the film industry afloat. It is inspiring studios to use it more often, and it is also having an effect on still film photography. There has been a huge resurgence in analog photography and Nolan is a part of the reason why.

People are sick of AI imagery. They want authentic visual artistry. And I think analog formats are getting popular again because of that. And Nolan is the most famous advocate for that cause.

People are excited about seeing a big movie in a theater on film. You don't see the positive in that?

And I wish people weren't so negative about the widescreen versions. They are cool in their own way.

The 70mm and 35mm widescreen formats are both film projection. Seeing a movie projected in film is a rare experience that may not be around in a decade. Nolan created all of the film prints from the IMAX version. It was a completely analog pipeline. Even the color grading was done with an analog process called color timing.

So if you want to see more of the image and get a big screen experience, either of the IMAX versions are great.

But if you want a very unique, fully analog experience, the 70mm and 35mm widescreen versions are worth checking out. The 70mm will maintain the same high resolution as IMAX.

I am a photographer and a visual artist and I very much want movie theaters to be successful and I want to make sure shooting on film conitnues to be an option for a long time to come. I care much more about that than convincing Christopher Nolan to have sexual relations with me.

Never gonna keep me down 🐶🛹✨

the big finding of the whole experiment was that both food and comfort are not just substantial, but required for healthy development. in the 50s the popular theory was that mothers should touch and hold their babies as little as possible to avoid “spoiling” them, especially right after birth (which explains uh. a lot about boomers as a generation).

Harlow conducted his experiment to investigate this idea, and he found that physical comfort nearly eclipsed the food as a need in the baby macaques. They would go to the wire mothers only when they were hungry, sometimes even trying to reach the milk bottles without letting go of the cloth mothers, because they so badly needed both. Harlow’s other experiments showed that being deprived of parental comfort and enrichment as babies dealt lasting psychological damage to the macaques. and today we know that human babies can just up and die without enough skin-to-skin contact.