My problem with IMAX scenes is that the AR shift wouldn’t have to happen if they just did the whole thing in IMAX. Either use IMAX or don’t use IMAX.
Yall may disagree withme and call me an idiot, but even a movie in all IMAX format would suck IMO. The problem with cinemas today is the evolution of going from CIH to CIW. In the old days, and still in some cinemas today, but not many, You had a screen that was typically a Cinemascope AR (2.39:1) with curtains on each side and at the bottom. The bottom curtain was for that rare Super Panavision (2.75:1 AR). If the movie happened to be filmed in Panavision (2.20:1 AR), the curtains would draw in a bit to accomadate the AR. Or, if it was a Flat (1.85:1) they would draw in a bit more. Despite all of that, the height of the screen stayed the same. Now, more often than not, the width is the same but the height changes, which greatly redduces the experience and IMO is false advertisement. Example, I went to see “Logan” the other night. The ticket said “IMAX” and yes, it was in the IMAX theatre. But it wasnt IMAX. It was a 2.35:1 image projected on the IMAX screen.
As far as your question DEK, I say why not film the entire movie in 2.39:1 on 70mm Anamorphic IMAX? The human eyes naturally scan left to right, not up and down. If you had an IMAX size 2:39:1 screen, imagine how immersed youd be. I remember watching ROTJ in 70MM in an old classic theatre on opening day. The screen was originally a Cinerama (curved) screen that was renovated prior to Jedi, but they still kept some of the curve which made it even more immersive. Ill never forget it. I feel changing AR’s are directors being lazy. You can still convey size and height by changin the focal length of the lense or changing where you take the shot. I hate changing aspect ratio and I dont care for IMAX. Its nothing more than a glorified version of our TVs at home, actually not even as wide as our tvs at home. Thats completely counter to what our brains do naturally.