Brad Pitt’s F1 Movie Proves One Thing About IMAX

Since the appearance of animation, many tricks have been used to help enhance the cinema experience. In the middle of both Hullabaloo and Ballyhoo of a variety of Sideshow Huckster (something highlighted by movie makers such as William Castle), there are various technological developments (and/or experiments) that try to enhance just a movie. Everything from the adoption of Sync Sound (also known as “Talkies”) in the thirties of the twentieth century through the appearance of Technicolor, and the invention of Cinerama (and its cheaper competitors Vistavision and Cinemascope) in the fifties of the last century, the use of “Sensurroul” in the mid -seventy, digital drawing, and Tursingssed And 3-D-Blouds. Theater owners trying to find a way to attract crowds with an additional way of fraud. Although some of these additions succeeded in becoming standards, and there were no short -lived hands, but there was no way to circumvent the cinema that remained unique while it became more prevalent … with one exception.

This is true: Imax is a cinema format that has not only proven to have the ability to continue and photograph business even with reference versions, but it constantly provides an unimaginable experience at home (unless you live inside a multi -layer building very open). The company was originally developed in the late 1960s as a projection system similar to the clarification, the company continued an advantage in many science and museum centers throughout the country, before it finally started examining the first animation in the twentieth century. In 2025, there is a multi-sequence in each cinema a screen that bears the IMAX brand, and a large number of Hollywood films are presented whether summer films or prominent versions of any type-in ​​coordination, are to the extent that the company implemented “it was filmed for IMAX”.

One of the continuing supporters of coordination, along with Christopher Nolan and Rayan Kojler, is director Joseph Kusinski. His latest feature, “F1: The Movie”, is the fourth that was filmed for IMAX, the sixteenth local film that will be presented in IMAX this year alone. Although a large summer film released in IMAX may be equal to the course these days, “F1” uses smartly to coordinate, a movie that proves at least one thing: IMAX here to survive, and it must be used to its maximum capabilities.

Anyone who watched a movie in IMAX format knows the result now, and this is the preparation of the eyes for the endless switching of the display rates to the height. Christopher Nolan, the older narration director who adopts this format, prefers these transformations (which is usually switched between a wide-screen frame of 2.20: 1 and a long percentage, IMAX-RAKUE 1.43: 1) to be surprising and increasing, thus maintaining the audience as stimulating and alerting it as similar audio conclusions. Other directors love to transform skillfully between the proportions in a smart way, as Ryan Kogler does with changes in “sinners” where the image grows during the shot. Although there are many enjoyable applications for this technology (this year alone has a smart series in “Mission: Dispistrict – The Final Reckoning”, where Tom Cruise Superspy has turned the wheel and the image grows with each kars), but it always feels a restriction of coordination. In other words, because every standard IMAX framing screen can not accommodate, film makers must choose and choose their moments to shine.

Kosinski seems to have found a compromise with “F1”, which is that the entire film is presented with a fixed cross rate of 1.90: 1. This means that there are no changes in the image throughout the entire film, and the film allows it to become overwhelming like Kosinski apparently wishes to be. It is a smart choice for a movie about the veteran contestant, Sony (Brad Pitt), who learn to find a balance with his younger and most ambitious colleague, Joshua (Damson Idris), where the duo collides inside and outside the path. With this approach, Cosinski and the cinematic photographer Claudio Miranda do not need to indicate or determine the kinetic racing sequence of moments between the characters outside their cars, and therefore, the film looks every piece. “F1” is not the first major version to keep its images consistent, as “Avengers: Infinity War” and “Avengers: Endgame” was the first Hollywood film to be filmed entirely using IMAX cameras. Although these films are almost fixed, “F1”, “F1” are an intimate drama when they are not on the race track, which makes the presentation feel more novel. Although this choice of consistency loses some from Balllyhoo for the typical IMAX movie – there is always a clear feeling of excitement in an audience when the screen expands, indicating that a large group is about to start – it instead makes “F1”, where the entire image fills, similar to the movie, which makes it indicate “Cinema”.

To date, most IMAX versions (or at least films that were “filmed for IMAX” using the company’s cameras) have mainly followed the same pattern of changing the display rates to the height. Whether these proportions are 1: 90: 1 in each place, or 1.90: 1 for IMAX themes and 1.43: 1 for the longest and the largest, there was at least a general consistency in the presentation. However, as recent versions such as “Dune: Part Two” and “Sin” for this year, there is a lot of contrast between all the large available formats (in the latter case, Coogler helped himself refer to these differences). In other words, it may mean telling someone that you saw “sinners” in Imax that you saw either 2.76: 1 version turning into 1.90: 1 during IMAX scenes, or version 2.76: 1 turns into 1.43: 1 during IMAX scenes, or the last in IMAX 70mm. When it comes to IMAX with laser sites, there are only 7 in the United States, and only 10 additional theaters are equipped for the IMAX 70 mm movie project. This means that only 17 theaters in the entire country are distinguished by the full IMAX screen 1.43: 1, and although these screens make a special and unique experience, they feel that many cinemas are unfortunately losing.

That is why Kosinski and Miranda’s option to shoot 1.90: 1 around is a decent compromise, because it means that the IMAX Theater that you see “F1” in, you will see the same amount of the image that everyone is. However, there is no denial that the experience of seeing a movie at 1.43: 1 Imax is more unforgettable, and it is completely impossible to repeat it at home. So the question was asked: Now that IMAX is here to stay out of doubt, is the IMAX standard 1.90: 1? Or should this continue to take into account according to the humiliating term “Liemax”, while maintaining 1.43: 1 The real “definition” of coordination? After all, every Dolby and 4DX cinema in the country offers the same general experience without this contrast.

For my money, I think there is a future in theater owners and Imax puts dollars and effort to build more IMAX 1.43 screens 1 across the country. The tremendous success of “Oppenheimer” and “sinners” and other IMAX versions should be enough evidence that the fans will attend these screens in large numbers. If this happens, perhaps the possibility of a full -length feature can occur in 1.43: 1, similar to “F1” and its lack of ratio changes, and we have one hell from a way to circumvent the cinema.