Mid-Week Poll: The Great ‘Ghost Protocol’ Aspect Ratio Debate

Some of our readers may have noticed that yesterday’s Blu-ray post created quite a little kerfuffle in the Comments section about director Brad Bird’s decision to present ‘Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol‘ on Blu-ray in a constant 2.35:1 aspect ratio, without the shifting ratios that were seen in IMAX theatrical screenings. Where do you fall on this controversy? Are you fine with the decision, or is this a deal-breaker for you? Do you care at all? Vote in our poll after the page break.

Let me see if I can explain the problem. The majority of ‘Ghost Protocol’ was photographed on 35mm film at an aspect ratio of 2.35:1. (It’s technically 2.39:1, but everyone in the industry says “2.35” anyway, so let’s not quibble about that.) However, director Bird shot some of the action scenes on IMAX film stock, which has a much larger camera negative and a native capture ratio of 1.44:1.

In the old-fashioned, film-based IMAX 15/70 theaters, the bulk of the movie was letterboxed on the IMAX screen, until the action scenes, which expanded on the top and bottom to fill the screen, which should exceed the viewer’s field of vision. This is not something that can be fully reproduced on home video, due to typical screen sizes and the HDTV standard ratio of 16:9. If you were to pillarbox the full 1.44:1 camera negative in the center of a 16:9 TV screen, that would make the action scenes smaller and less immersive than the drama scenes, which is the exact opposite of the intended effect.

Keep in mind that the full 1.44:1 IMAX ratio was only seen in older film-based IMAX theaters, which the IMAX company has been phasing out in favor of digital theaters with a screen ratio of 2:1. On those screens, the movie’s aspect ratio shifted from 2.35:1 to 2:1, which is a much smaller difference. When I saw ‘Ghost Protocol’ in a digital IMAX theater, the change in aspect ratio was barely visible unless you knew to look for it. I’m sure that most of the audience never noticed. Also, all non-IMAX theaters (whether 35mm or digital) presented the movie at a constant 2.35:1 ratio from beginning to end.

You may recall that ‘The Dark Knight‘ was made in a similar fashion. When that movie came to Blu-ray, director Christopher Nolan elected to crop the IMAX action scenes to a screen-filling 16:9 ratio, which maintained the basic premise that those scenes should be larger than the other drama scenes. Some viewers liked this, while others found it distracting.

Brad Bird disagrees with this approach. As he has explained in recent interviews, he instructed that the ‘Ghost Protocol’ Blu-ray be presented in a constant 2.35:1 ratio, even during the action scenes.

When you’re sitting watching IMAX, the Panavision part fills your point of view. And then suddenly you see above that point of view and below it drop away. And most people, when they watch at home, sit across the room, and they’re watching a little box. And if that’s the case, I would rather have them see the Panavision thing, because it’s not drawing attention to itself… To me, if you’re going to watch it at home, I would rather have a consistent aspect ratio – we even filmed the IMAX sequences so they would look good in Panavision.

In other words, he finds the shifting aspect ratios distracting on a home screen, and he composed the IMAX scenes with a 2.35:1 crop in mind. Remember, the vast majority of viewers who saw ‘Ghost Protocol’ in a theater saw it at 2.35:1. That was the movie’s primary format, and the one that Bird had to compose the shots for.

Using a promotional still, I’ve cooked up a little graphic to illustrate the difference. Click to enlarge:

Personally, I’m fine with this. As I explained in the Comments to yesterday’s post, it’s Brad Bird’s movie, and if he says that he composed it for 2.35:1 and prefers it at 2.35:1, then that is the movie’s “Original Aspect Ratio.” Yes, I fully realize that some readers may think this sounds hypocritical coming from the guy who complained about James Cameron’s decision to re-frame ‘Avatar‘ for home video, but this is a different movie and a completely different situation. I stand by both opinions.

At the same time, if Brad Bird had decided to keep the shifting aspect ratios, I would have accepted that as well. I never complained about the shifting ratios on ‘The Dark Knight’ or ‘Tron: Legacy‘, and of the two editions of ‘Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen‘ that I reviewed, I elected to keep the “Big Screen Edition” with alternating aspect ratios. I just zoom them up to fill my 2.35:1 Constant Image Height projection screen anyway, and they all look perfectly fine cropped to that ratio, because they were specifically composed with that in mind.

Where do you stand on this?

What Do You Think About the 'Ghost Protocol' Aspect Ratio Controversy?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


  1. David

    I am very pleased that the director made these choices because I’ve always felt that the shifting aspect ratios in “The Dark Knight” were kind of distracting. However, that being said, those scenes are so stunning I’ve never really complained about it. I feel like the real benefit to the IMAX film stock is the increased clarity and depth, which are not necessarily dependent on the aspect ratio. And if “The Dark Knight” is a typical example, these features transfer nicely onto Blu-ray. I think we’re in for a nice treat with this new movie regardless of the cropping and aspect ratio choices made by the director.

  2. Barsoom Bob

    I thought the opening up of the frame for The Dark Knight blu-ray was effective and added something to the presentation, not essential but kind of dramatic. Agree on the other benefits that come with Imax to blu ray conversions. Good graphic to show what each variation is getting.

    Saw GP at the real Imax theater on Broadway in NYC and during those high altitude scenes, it felt like you were going to fall off the edge of the building.

    I do feel for the constant height contingent, this must drive them crazy. As pointed out, somehow this should be made an option.

  3. Drew

    Josh, I just want to point out that you are taking a very hypocritical stance on this. Go back and read your comments about James Cameron changing the OAR for the blu-ray of ‘Avatar’. You took him to task, called him revisionist, said that he was a liar, and stated that he was a hypocrite for comments he had made about the OAR, and how he was changing it for the blu-ray release.

    Fast forward a few years, and Brad Bird does the exact same thing. The comments he makes concerning the OAR for the blu-ray release are eerily similar to the ones Cameron made leading up to the ‘Avatar’ release. And yet, you defend Bird, and become his biggest apologist. You reverse course from every statement you’ve ever made regarding similar circumstances. You don’t take Bird to task for saying, after the fact, that the 1.44:1 framed IMAX footage was actually — paraphrasing — “framed at 1.44:1 with Panavision in mind all along, so 2.35:1 actually works for that footage.” It’s heresy. You, of all people should be the last one making excuses for him, and saying that it’s okay to put out a film that does not contain the full artistic expression that was originally put forth by the creator. You’ve always been a champion for preserving the art, in a way that it was originally exhibited, but alas, here you are, turning into a hypocrite.
    The one big difference when you compare this situation with Bird to the Cameron example that I brought up, or the many George Lucas examples I could bring up? You like Bird, while you hate Cameron and Lucas. It’s not okay to change your stance, simply because you’re a fan of the person who made the decision. Bird’s waffling, and contradictory statements are no different than the ones made by Cameron or Lucas. It’s not all right, just because you don’t dislike him. You should remain consistent, regardless of which filmmakers are involved. You would have been the last person that I ever could have imagined, doing something like this. Preservation of the original cinematic art has always been a priority for you, and something that you’ve been very vocal about.

    • Josh Zyber

      I honestly don’t know what’s not getting through to you about this. Brad Bird shot Ghost Protocol knowing that he’d have to crop the IMAX footage to 2.35:1 for all non-IMAX theatrical engagements. This was not an after-the-fact revision. The movie was planned for 2.35:1 from the start, and Bird has stated that the 2.35:1 version is his preferred “OAR.”

      Avatar was also photographed for 2.35:1, but James Cameron decided later that he wanted to change it to 16:9. That’s precisely the opposite of what happened with Ghost Protocol.

      Just because the camera negative has extra picture exposed on it doesn’t mean that you need to see it. You’re not missing any important picture information on the Ghost Protocol Blu-ray. The director framed his shots for the 2.35:1 crop. His camera viewfinder had 2.35:1 markings on it. On set, he put all of the important picture within the 2.35:1 area and left the rest empty, just like directors who shoot on Super 35 do. The “OAR” of a Super 35 movie is the ratio that the director frames his shots for, not the ratio exposed on the camera negative. Same thing here.

      James Cameron has NEVER claimed that he composed Avatar with 16:9 in mind. He says that he “fell in love” with the open-matte version during post-production, after principal photography was already completed. He made a revision, but he originally framed the shots for 2.35:1, and in fact voiced a preference for 2.35:1 for the 2D version of the movie right up until just before the Blu-ray was released, where he changed his mind at the last minute.

      These are totally different situations.

      Further, even though I would have preferred that Cameron release Avatar at 2.35:1, I have accepted his decision and his right to make it. The aspect ratio didn’t stop me from buying the Blu-ray. (The fact that I don’t like the movie stopped me from buying the Blu-ray, yet I wound up with a review screener copy anyway – but that’s all beside the point and getting off track.)

  4. Random Commenter

    I personally wish that Bird had included shifting ratios on the Blu-ray. I loved the effect the shifts had on Tron: Legacy and The Dark Knight’s respective discs, but it doesn’t bother me so much to avoid buying it, since it is still technically the original aspect ratio.) I certainly respect Mr. Bird a great deal, even if I don’t support this decision fully. I happily bought the Best Buy exclusive version yesterday. 😀

  5. Drew

    And there you go again – as hypocritical as ever! A Bird apologist through and through. Keep making excuses. Keep pretending like was consistent. Keep saying things thaf you want to believe are true.

    It’s clear. You’ll simply never understand. It will never get through to you. You are blinded by your unadulterated love of Bird.

  6. JM

    Josh, your illustrative graphic is a powerful argument for 16:9.

    If we’re losing that much of the movie, this is a rental, not a buy.

    My blu-ray arrives tonight, so I guess I’ll see if this feels like pan-and-scan.

    What I find crazy is the people who argue the best compromise is to crop it to 1.66.

    • Josh Zyber

      Rather than just look at the amount of picture that’s been matted off, you should look at what’s in that picture area – a whole lotta nothing. The important action all falls within the 2.35:1 area, because that’s what Bird framed the shot for.

    • I am actually wondering if that illustrative graphic is truly a frame from the film. Most true IMAX is shot with a fish-eyed lense. The sides, top and bottom of this picture should show a distorted horizon. If the film was shot without a fisheyed lense, then it would have appeared distorted when shown back at IMAX-Film theaters. So, if the original IMAX film was shown on the Blu, it would either be distorted, or have to be shown in something similar to the Smilevision that they used on How The West Was Won.

      • Josh Zyber

        Not all IMAX screens are curved, and curved screens can also be used with standard movies that were not shot with fish-eye lenses (or, say, the majority of footage in a movie like Ghost Protocol, which was shot in 35mm). The IMAX movies shot with fish-eye lenses tend to do so as a stylistic decision to maximize the sense of scale. It’s not a requirement of the format.

        If the shot above had been filmed with fish-eye lenses, it would make Cruise look really tiny in the frame. While that might help to emphasize the vastness of space around him, it would also distance the actor from the audience, lessening the audience’s emotional investment in his predicament.

  7. Drew

    No! It’s not a whole lotta nothing! Is this some kind of a joke?! We are losing a ton of vital picture information. Jane is absolutely right. How can you call that “a whole lotta nothing”?

    Look at your illustration again, and really focus on what we are actually losing. Keep in mind that your illustration is only one photograph out of about 30 minutes of footage, in which we are losing that same amount of picture.

    • Josh Zyber

      You may consider the top part of that traffic rotary, the empty park in the upper left corner, or the extra bit of window pane below Cruise’s reflection to be “vital picture information,” but the film’s director, the man who was actually on set, told the actor where to position himself, and pointed the camera at him, disagrees with you.

      Look at the picture again and cover up the parts above and below the blue frame lines with your hands or some pieces of paper or something, and then tell me that the 2.35:1 shot looks objectively “wrong” in some way. You can’t, because it isn’t. Everything you need to know about the scene is in that portion of the frame.

      I understand that you’re upset about the principle of the thing. You think that you’re being cheated out of something that viewers in IMAX theaters saw. But there’s a difference between principle and practical reality, and you haven’t grasped that distinction.

      I’m tired of arguing this. I’ve voiced my feelings on the matter. Place your vote in the poll and we can move on.

  8. I was blown away by the IMAX-filmed scenes of this movie when I saw it in a proper IMAX theater. Although, I don’t care that he made this decision seeing that the feeling created by those scenes cannot be replicated outside of an IMAX theater anyway. No matter how big of a TV you have you’re never going to feel that stomach-churning vertigo that was felt when you saw it on an IMAX screen.

    • Although I do wish that maybe they would’ve released some Best Buy/Walmart/Target exclusive that had the changing aspect ratio just to satisfy everyone. I mean, why not?

  9. JM

    Science proves that the human eye is capable of interpreting an image the fastest if the image fits the golden ratio.


    And because of that frame-to-brain efficiency, we experience pleasure.

    When Kerns H. Powers proposed in 1980 that HDTV be 16:9 (1.77:1), he settled on that as the precise compromise between 1.33, 1.66, 1.85, and 2.35, which is exactly what happens when a problem is solved by an engineer.

    If Hollywood didn’t have to use gimmicks to trick people into theaters, and important decisions were made according to timeless laws of art, we would all have 1.618 TVs and movies and the plots would all be better.

    Is there any chance the 8K generation will switch to the golden ratio, so that for the rest of human history we’re locked into aesthetic perfection?

  10. Drew


    “But there’s a difference between principle and practical reality, and you haven’t grasped that distinction.”

    It is you that has failed to grasp that distinction. If you were actually capable of doing so, you might be able to understand what the practical reality of this situation is.

    I don’t feel cheated out of anything. You couldn’t be more wrong. I simply want you to stop bending the truth and acting like Bird has remained consistent on this matter. You just keep saying that he always framed the IMAX footage at 2.35:1. This is an utter falsity. During production of the film, he made several statements about how pleased he was with the composition of the IMAX filmed scenes, and how much he was able to add to them, and improve them by framing them at 1.44:1. He never made any statements about composing this footage for 2.35:1 framing until the time leading up to the blu-ray release. At that point in time, he waffled and back tracked on all of the original statements he had made about being so happy with the composition of the IMAX footage, and said that they kept Panavision in mind when shooting the IMAX scenes, so it was okay to keep them framed at 2.35:1 for the blu- ray, because the footage had screened just fine at 2.35:1 in non-IMAX showings. For you to sit there and act as his apologist, and try to pretend that the IMAX footage was always framed at 2.35:1, and they just opened up the matte to show us what the camera negative had captured during these scenes is such a load of horse crap! It proves that can’t grasp reality, either practical or any other type of it.

    Viewers should be given the option, one way or another to see this footage as it was composed during production. There’s no excuse for this not occurring. It could even be a special feature. The option should exist. The original art should be preserved for all who care to see it, to be able to do so. You should be championing this, and instead you’ve turned apologist hypocrite.

    • Josh Zyber

      “During production of the film, he made several statements about how pleased he was with the composition of the IMAX filmed scenes, and how much he was able to add to them, and improve them by framing them at 1.44:1.”

      Source, please. I would like to see the exact words that he actually spoke.

  11. Drew

    The film looks great screened at 2.35:1. I’ve watched it all the way through twice now, after only seeing it in true IMAX theatrically. It would even probably be my preference to view it screened this way, at home. Regardless, the option should exist to see every last bit of those 30+ minutes of IMAX footage.

    There are too many ways that this could have taken place for it to be okay to not include it. If Bird didn’t want to switching aspect ratios for home viewing. The footage, in it’s entirety, could have been on a separate disc, added as a bonus feature, or given to the viewer in one of many other ways. That’s the bottom line.

  12. Brian H

    A couple of years ago, I decided that I wanted to own a copy of Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. As it turned out, there where several cheap dvd cobo versions of the movie available, but they were all framed in 1.33. Only the more expensive flipper disk had a 1.85.1, widescreen version. The completionist in me wanted that widescreen version, after all it had been released in theaters as a feature film.

    After acquiring the flipper disk, I actually went through a dozen scenes, took screenshots and compared the two versions. The completionist in me had been wary of typical pan and scan shenanigans. Since the film was animated, I further reasoned that the extra footage in the frame must have been important, since it had to be drawn and animated, etc. I discovered that both versions contained areas of the frame not available in their screen aspect counterparts. (scaling had a hand in this) To my surprise, the 1.33 version had the edge in terms of allowing the viewer to see the largest amount of the drawn, composited frame. Unsurprising to me was that I prefer the widescreen version. For me, a wideframe (preferably wider than 16:9) relays a cinematic look.

    When it comes to intent, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm had an odd history of being produced intially as direct to video and later a feature release. I have read articles detailing the myriad of versions of Transformers : the Movie (1986) where matts have been removed to reveal more information that had been drawn, composited, and animated, as well as a large heap of mistakes and artifacts. I am sure that there was also a process of taking a tv show feature and making it a film feature midway that casts doubt on intent.

    Ultimately, I feel that when Batman: Mask of the Phantasm was framed for 1.85, prior to release, they did an excellent job, and it is the version that I prefer. The completionist in me that wanted to see the maximum amount of the frame was blind to what I then released was a surperior asthetic choice.

  13. David

    I think it’s really bizzare that Drew is so fanatical about this shifting aspect ratio thing. Is it really such a bad thing for a director to want a consistent aspect ratio for a home theater release? Come on, get real. It’s not like he is intentionally altering the entire film’s aspect ratio from its original version, James Cameron style. Brad Bird simply wants a CONSISTENT aspect ratio for the entire presentation. No movie-maker in history has ever been denied that right. Just because he used the shifting aspect ratio as a (very effective) thrill gimmick on the massive IMAX screens, doesn’t mean that he is obligated to provide those images on home video. Besides, the only way he could pull it off and even modestly achieve the desired effect would be to crop the image to 16:9 which would still be a “revision from the original.” Obviously, leaving the action sequences in 1.44:1 would not be an option for a home HDTV since pillar boxing has the complete opposite effect as IMAX. The point is, replicating the IMAX experience is impossible on home HDTV. The solution is to present the home video in the best way possible. Brad Bird chose to present a constant aspect ratio while Christopher Nolan made the radical (and really kind of bizarre if you think about it) decision to use a shifting aspect ratio. To each his own.

      • Josh Zyber

        If the Blu-ray release of The Tingler doesn’t provide an electrical shock to Drew’s butt while watching it, there will be hell to pay!! 🙂

        • EM

          After I made my post, I got to thinking that The Tingler might be a good candidate for D-Box enhancement. And 3D would be a valid approach to House on Haunted Hill—show the movie itself in 2D, but use 3D to simulate the “floating” plastic skeleton.

    • Josh Zyber

      I hesitate to mention that Bird also had the movie’s soundtrack remixed for “near field” home theater. He altered both the picture and sound to provide what he considers the best home viewing experience. The bastard! 🙂

  14. I prefer a constant ratio. I agree with Josh’s original comment – 2.35:1 IS the Original Aspect Ratio. I normally would prefer a movie to have the frame opened up to fill the 16×9 screen, but if that was the case, you would need to open up the frame for the entire movie (not crop the sides).

    In other words, just stick with one aspect ratio. While I would prefer to see more of the picture, I HATE having shifting aspect ratios in a movie. Shoot, it drives me nuts when the title sequence is at a different aspect ratio from the movie (I think Grease had this issue).

  15. Mike Attebery

    I find the shifting aspect ratio very distracting, but I felt I missed out on the impact a 16:9 image would have brought to the Dubai sequence.

  16. JM

    The Dubai sequence felt mutilated.

    Cutting that scene to 2.35 completely took me out of the movie.

    Since that was the money shot of the movie, I would have preferred they crop the entire film to 16:9, like the HD broadcast version.

    However, in the scheme of things, ‘Mission: Impossible – Gadgets & Cleavage’ was so disappointing on so many levels that its aspect ratio wouldn’t even make my Top 20 complaints.

    Brad Bird recently twittered that if enough people outrage, Paramount might release a special edition. Would they do a disc exchange?

  17. I did enjoy the changing ratios on Dark Knight and especially Tron:Legacy, but it didn’t make or break the movie for me. Just like this one not doing that isn’t going to impact my enjoyment of the film.

  18. DaFees

    I saw Ghost Protocol in a genuine IMAX theater and absolutely loved the experience. So I was disappointed when the IMAX scenes were not represented in any fashion on this blu-ray release. I do agree with everyone that using the OAR of the IMAX scenes of 1.44:1 wouldn’t be that impactful. However there isn’t any reason the aspect ration of 16:9 couldn’t be used just like the Dark Knight was. I mean here is the way I look at it; if you won’t present the IMAX scenes in any way on the home release, why then did you ever bother to even shoot in IMAX in the first place. I mean if you have no intentions to provide them on the home release and only a couple thousand people would actually see them in the fullest quality during its theatrical run, then honestly why would expend the added time, effort and cost to shoot in IMAX?

  19. Jason

    I’m fine with the 2.35:1 ratio but if I had the option I would have bought an adjusting ratio version.

  20. Brian H

    Turns out that a consistent aspect is best for the iPad, which made the director’s choice a no-brainer.

  21. Ted S.

    I don’t really care, I bought the BD the other night and it looked amazing. I do agree though that the scene where Ethan was climbing up the building wasn’t as cool as when I saw it on the giant IMAX screen. But I don’t have a 6 stories screen at my house so I guess my 2.20:1 screen will be enough.

    BTW Josh, I think Drew might try to hurt you or something. That man is truly pissed about this.

  22. THX1138

    To be honest I don’t care what size it is, if it’s a good movie, with a good story, and is well made doesn’t really matter?

    My TV is 16:9 so most times I have to “zoom” in to fill the screen, so constant should work best.

    But this is all and age old discourse which distinguishes between TV and film aspect ratio and until everyone have 2.35:1 TV’s it will never go away.

    I cast you mind back to the 1980’s and Back to the Future, I believe Spielberg ensured (as Producer) that Bob Zemicks filmed the movie in 185:1 but contained the action within 4:3 aspect ratio. Why??? Because the VHS sell through market was where the money was, and not in the movie theatres. Thus ensuring the main market got the best images possible filling their TV window.

    So zooming and cropping is more a marketing tool to make sure the targeted end user get the best possible experience, which I think has to be a directorial decision, and not a movie company.

    I think it is therefore frantastic that the Director has been given control of this decision process, a few years back Aliens was cut dramatically for the movie release. Why? Because if it was shorter they could get 3 screenings in a day and not 2!!!

    If the Director say “look you couldn’t be bothered to see the movie at the theatre like I intended, this is what I think will work best for you at home” I think you go with it.

    “Pure-ists” will not agree with me I know, but at the end of the day what’s it about? Surely a really good story, popcorn and the family or friends having a good time together? Never mind the size…feel the love!!! Peace (no I’m not a hippy, just could think how to end).

  23. Patrick Peeters

    As on owner of a small home cinema (no CIH) I must say that I would like a shifting aspect ratio version of this film. It worked well on “The Dark Knight” and “Tron: Legacy”.

    If he shot it on another aspect ratio it would be great for the home viewers to have the possibility of seeing the movie this way.

    This changing of aspect ratio would also work well on a 16:9 television. In my opinion it’s always a nice extra to have parts of a 2.35 movie go suddenly full screen. Especially because it’s shot this way and had a theatrical release this way.

    A 2.35 movie also looks great with the black bars on a 16:9 film, but if it’s there then it would be great to see a shifting aspect ratio version of a movie. I don’t think people are complaining when a 16:9 movie has 4:3 images (because using old stock footage, documentary item, choice of the director, …) while here you’re getting less, when shifting from 2.35 to 1.78 you’re getting more!

    And people not wanting a shifting aspect ratio version because they are zooming a 2.35 movie to fill the 16:9 television screen are doing more wrong to the picture (and the work of the filmcrew) in comparison to people who want a SAR version for viewing pleasure!

  24. I haven’t seen the Ghost Protocol BD yet, but I can say that the IMAX scenes in DArk Knight, Transformers 2, and Tron LEgacy (I saw all 4 of theses movies in full 1.44:1 IMAX in the theater) look superior in resolution, color density, etc to the 35mm scenes.

    This is likely because the higher resolution film allows for a better looking image on BD.

    Does the Ghost Protocol BD image actually improve with the scenes that were shot in IMAX even though there is no aspect ratio shift?

    • Josh Zyber

      Although Tron: Legacy has scenes that change aspect ratios, no part of that movie was shot with actual IMAX film. The entire movie was photographed at 2k digital. The “scope” scenes were matted down from the 16:9 digital capture, while the “IMAX” scenes merely lifted the mattes. The quality of the footage is otherwise identical on that disc.

      • Actually Josh, Tron Legacy was shot in 3D with two Sony F35’s so it’s not even 2K. It’s 1080p. Whether or not they did some digital upscaling (not counting the IMAX DMR process) the movie is only 1080p (just like Avatar which was shot on Sony F23’s).

        • Josh Zyber

          According to IMDb, Tron Legacy was shot with a combination of Phantom HD (which is a 2k camera) and Sony F35 (which is 1080p). I’m not sure how much of the movie was shot with either.

          In any case, the point is that it wasn’t IMAX.