Dispatcher (teaser trailer)

[Phil Holland]

Best of luck Phil!

You know I am your biggest fan Phil.....Great luck

Thank you guys. Heh. Peter you've known me longer than most and I very much appreciate that.

Phil,

Did you do your own foley work?

Yep. Sometime late Saturday evening after I had the edit locked. We wrapped Friday night and this screened in Las Vegas at 3pm Sunday afternoon.

It was just some subtle stuff, footsteps and doors. Also extracted a fair bit from our audio on set. Rolled as many "elements" I could think of when we were filming to save time. We even planted a few mics to get things like doors opening.

Very cool Phil! Always fun to see what you are working on.

I know this is early stages, but I am curious about the look. It feels heavily LUTed. Is the look part of the story? Just curious how you arrived at that look.

Also, how did you find the Tokinas performed for you? Are you happy with them?

Tokinas have been good for me. At this point I go between the Tokinas, Sigmas, and modified Zeiss Otus primes pretty regularly on shoots. Just depends on the look I'm after. About to shoot something with my Schneider Xenon FF-Primes that's a slightly more vintage feel.

It is indeed a fairly heavy grade. Attempting for something in the modern noir range with the look. The actual grade is pretty fascinating as it's very "kodaky" in the tonal response in the midtones, though highlights and shadows have been tampered with. Color is of course very different and limited. We also did a lot of that on set with gels on the lights to compliment that separation.

Good luck! Would love to hear on the progress

Thanks Dylan. Thus far it's shown in Vegas and NAB and IBC. There have been a few limited screenings for potential investors and that's gone well. I'm now in the studio pitch mode as well as hunting some larger names to assist with that. Though I have to say I'd like to keep a few of our core cast, some of whom are not in the trailer. We'll see.

 

[Grzegorz Gill]

Some slick images!

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

You know what I'm thinking? You have everything you need - and more - to make IMAX feature films.

8K is wasted on conventional movie screens. You have two options: either crop the sensor to 4:3 (full height) or use anamorphic lenses mounted 90 degrees off horizontal, so that you desqueeze vertically, thus using most of the sensor.

IMAX features would be arguably cheaper to make, as you don't need any VFX or known actors. Good writing and shots from the top of very tall buildings will never get old.

I've ranted about all this before, but I really think there's something to it.

 

[Phil Holland]

You know what I'm thinking? You have everything you need - and more - to make IMAX feature films.

8K is wasted on conventional movie screens. You have two options: either crop the sensor to 4:3 (full height) or use anamorphic lenses mounted 90 degrees off horizontal, so that you desqueeze vertically, thus using most of the sensor.

IMAX features would be arguably cheaper to make, as you don't need any VFX or known actors. Good writing and shots from the top of very tall buildings will never get old.

I've ranted about all this before, but I really think there's something to it.

Well that's sort of what I've been doing for the last few years, but there's rather BIG reasons things like this are happening:




But to tell you the actual (and sometimes hard to hear truth). IMAX loves RED. Ever since RED got to 5K resolution there was a massive uptick in RED being used on big screen IMAX productions. Moreso now that 8K resolution exists and moreso still with 8K VV. While the resolution isn't the whole story for traditional IMAX productions, the 70mm 15-perf negative/image plane/format size plays a massive role, with VV you can shoot wide enough to get into the ball park for the bread and butter wide and ultra-wide shots that IMAX often needs for domes and theaters. There was a two stage thing that happened, and this is pretty much industry-wide. Mysterium-X got to 5K. People on the film side really took notice, but it was still "a ways from film". Dragon improved color, dynamic range, and also provided more resolution for those who needed it. It literally changed the game and you'll notice since Dragon dropped RED's ended up in a lot of places and creator's hands that you didn't see with MX. Dragon, Helium, and recently Mostro all provide much of that goodness in terms of color and dynamic range. RED has now produced 3 8K sensors, 2 VistaVision and 1 Super 35mm solution.

Over the last few years I've shot, consulted, and assisted on a great deal of large screen productions in particular. There is a nasty dangerous truth regarding 70mm productions. The cameras are big and rather expensive to film on. And worse, they vibrate. That large image plane is difficult to keep stable in it's movement. And while the film negative has the potential to hold more detail, the combination vibration from the camera and film transport with the additional chaos of "not a lot of choice for really state of the art optics" leaves most 70mm productions shooting at speed resolving around 5.7-6K resolution. Despite it now being scanned at 11K. If you are however shooting something like timelapse, you can indeed "net more" from it.

And yep, IMAX is indeed 4:3 for much of their work and it just so "magically occurs" that RED's "6K 4:3" format and resolution works out to 5760x4320. There are no accidents here if you're paying attention. RED's aimed at specific resolutions and format sizes for reasons. Reasons that make a hell of a lot of sense to some and confuse others. Which I'm okay with. While the format size in S35 or VV on RED is different at that resolution, the resolving power and much more flexibility on the glass front is a much bigger deal.

As for the cost issues, yes, everybody has taken note and I've certainly noticed a big trend in this last year for many (and their aren't many) of the large format production companies to move towards digital.

We're at a time where the camera doesn't way 70lbs, it weighs 3.5lbs (to whatever you build it out to) and is much more flexible.


On the topic of 4:3 aspect ratio. While that may suit some and I've shot it for specific IMAX-y projects as needed, it is not my voice for narrative work. We have binocular vision and I'm focused on wide screen aspect ratios for the most part. Compositionally it offers more to me.

As for 8K, I have seen 8K projected now at 9', 13', and 40'. It will land some day I hope in theaters, however it's happening in homes first. The technology is just moving too fast for theaters to operate on that timeline and make a profit. LG, Sharp, Dell, etc..... All have solutions. I think there will be 3 or more shown shortly too.

Right now the industry is focused on the migration to 4K in homes and eventually in more theaters. However, 8K isn't too far off from being a more common delivery target.

This is what's good. Consumers "see" and like 4K as well as HDR. We are getting at the end of the day better quality images to viewers eyeballs. It's silly to ignore that and for many that have expect "big blue's" announcement next month and see how those folks "feel".

I'll add the disclaimer, I don't mind whatever anybody wants to shoot on as long as it suits their needs. But for many, especially who shot film in particular, the RED party has been the most hip-hoping good time.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Missed at NAB but watched the special screening during Cinegear

Best of Luck Phil!!

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Phil the general convention is, that is totally acceptable, that TWO Aspect Ration Reside within the IMAX Image Projector, they are 1.9:1 and 1.43:1 they both play well on the Large Screen. So a 1.9:1 Aspect Ratio would play very well taken from a Wide Screen 2.4:1 shot with the MONSTRO Vista Vision Camera. Just saying.

Humberto Rivera

 

[Phil Holland]

Phil the general convention is, that is totally acceptable, that TWO Aspect Ration Reside within the IMAX Image Projector, they are 1.9:1 and 1.43:1 they both play well on the Large Screen. So a 1.9:1 Aspect Ratio would play very well taken from a Wide Screen 2.4:1 shot with the MONSTRO Vista Vision Camera. Just saying.

Humberto Rivera

Well yes. But the main "thing" there is those are DCI ratios that have been adopted by IMAX, which is fine. The big screen theaters along with their accompanying screen size and theater seating design have been slowly (and unfortunately) dying off. There's less than 100 in the US.

I have a love for large screen IMAX, it's one of those things that did "immersion right" IMO, but it's far from something that will result in a standard that works "for most things".

Interestingly enough, the industry is currently dealing with another developing aspect ratio "thing". Vertical video. Cell phones have obviously become the most used screen and the nature of their vertical orientation for most typical uses has now had it's effect on motion picture production. This has been a growing trend, but now productions are seeking to shoot vertical as the main format most recently for some narrative projects. The culprit here is marketing research has lead to the staggering numbers that most people don't rotate their phone when watching video.

This won't go away anytime soon and I've shot vertical exhibition work, but once again narratively vertical has some interesting possibilities, but very quickly many who have shot it understand that what we consider "wide shots" aren't exactly wonderful on mobile.

I'm typing via 1 or 3 1.9:1 DCI displays that I own. So you know what I want But I'm good with 1.78:1 and 2.39:1.

 

[Eric Lange]

Well that's sort of what I've been doing for the last few years, but there's rather BIG reasons things like this are happening:





<snips various>...

But to tell you the actual (and sometimes hard to hear truth). IMAX loves RED. Ever since RED got to 5K resolution there was a massive uptick in RED being used on big screen IMAX productions. Moreso now that 8K resolution exists and moreso still with 8K VV. While the resolution isn't the whole story for traditional IMAX productions, the 70mm 15-perf negative/image plane/format size plays a massive role,

<snip>.

<snip>. The cameras are big and rather expensive to film on. And worse, they vibrate*. That large image plane is difficult to keep stable in it's movement. And while the film negative has the potential to hold more detail, the combination vibration from the camera and film transport with the additional chaos of "not a lot of choice for really state of the art optics" leaves most 70mm productions shooting at speed resolving around 5.7-6K resolution. Despite it now being scanned at 11K. If you are however shooting something like timelapse, you can indeed "net more" from it.

And yep, IMAX is indeed 4:3 for much of their work and it just so "magically occurs" that RED's "6K 4:3" format and resolution works out to 5760x4320. There are no accidents here if you're paying attention. RED's aimed at specific resolutions and format sizes for reasons. Reasons that make a hell of a lot of sense to some and confuse others. Which I'm okay with. While the format size in S35 or VV on RED is different at that resolution, the resolving power and much more flexibility on the glass front is a much bigger deal.

As for the cost issues, yes, everybody has taken note and I've certainly noticed a big trend in this last year for many (and their aren't many) of the large format production companies to move towards digital.

We're at a time where the camera doesn't way 70lbs, it weighs 3.5lbs (to whatever you build it out to) and is much more flexible.


On the topic of 4:3 aspect ratio. While that may suit some and I've shot it for specific IMAX-y projects as needed, it is not my voice for narrative work. We have binocular vision and I'm focused on wide screen aspect ratios for the most part. Compositionally it offers more to me.

As for 8K, I have seen 8K projected now at 9', 13', and 40'. It will land some day I hope in theaters, however it's happening in homes first. The technology is just moving too fast for theaters to operate on that timeline and make a profit. LG, Sharp, Dell, etc..... All have solutions. I think there will be 3 or more shown shortly too.

Right now the industry is focused on the migration to 4K in homes and eventually in more theaters. However, 8K isn't too far off from being a more common delivery target.

This is what's good. Consumers "see" and like 4K as well as HDR. We are getting at the end of the day better quality images to viewers eyeballs. It's silly to ignore that and for many that have expect "big blue's" announcement next month and see how those folks "feel".

I'll add the disclaimer, I don't mind whatever anybody wants to shoot on as long as it suits their needs. But for many, especially who shot film in particular, the RED party has been the most hip-hoping good time.

Thanks for sharing !

So are you hinting at the near future possibility of a 8K by 6k sensor from RED as that would cover the IMAX guys and pretty much all of the other applications you cite above? Also that would be very nice for stills DSMC (concept) [A real medium format!].

I think the general point I guess you are illustrating is that a lot of folks don't pull the trigger on equipment IF it does not fulfill a particular technical requirement. In other words a lot of technical folks in various more niche imaging related industries won't pull the trigger on major capital purchases for a platform that is a "Near miss"... But once a certain technical threshold has been met that one can expect a lot folks to come out of the woodwork to pull the trigger on these more unique and advanced platforms and really run with them. It is very NICE that RED considers such applications, as they don't have to from just a purely commercial aspect. So there seems to be a smidge of "technical" philanthropy to enable IMAX type applications to happen in the digital domain.

I'll stick my neck out and also say for 3d digital capture/VR/FX "Extraction", having proportionally more K in the vertical direction is pretty mission critical for that. I totally agree that a longer aspect ratio is esthetically far more pleasing from a compositional and artistic point of view (I LOVE LOVE LOVE) long aspect ratios, however for technical work and VFX especially if there is a S-3d/multi camera overlap having a more 4:3 type format is a LOT more practical and efficient and useful! Simple example if you have five stereo cameras set up to capture a generic scene of two protagonists sitting at a table or standing or whatever... You really need that vertical K to capture more 3d detail, as a long aspect ratio is kinda wasted and creates a weakened technical result. (caveat/exception: Unless one happens to be messing around with optics that split the rear elements/lenses to do left and right simultaneously on one 8k V-V frame; but not necessarily the best way to go for really high end results).

I just wanted to throw my 2c in there for the need for something like a 8K x 6k or even 8K x 5K sensor.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* Completely agree about the "Vibration"... It's scary how fast and violent IMAX stock has to move... (amazing). Any vibration is "Death" to technical photography. I'm glad someone else is making the point about destruction of resolution due to various modes of vibration. Really interesting they scan the IMAX to 11K [That's a lot of wasted K lol]. Ironically we will be doing some R&D on vibration to bring the argument for heavier mechanical positioning HW and masts and (tunable) tripods etc. for high end technical 2d and 3d imaging.

Anecdote: I used to work at the National Air and Space Museum as a Conservator/conservation "Intern" (20 years ago); in DC we had to travel out to Suitland Maryland via shuttle bus to the Garber facility (Aircraft restoration facility). So when in the winter snow was bad the shuttle buses would be delayed... So at the NASM we had an IMAX theater that pretty much always showed the "Blue Planet" + other shows... So that was fun in the morning to just be able to flash your badge and get a free entry 9 am in the morning to see the Blue Planet for free (employee perk).. I think I must have seen Blue planet 25 times at least... about 20 of those times I had the theatre to myself or a just me and a friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#/media/File:635715main_84HC188_full.jpg

If RED can make imagery that is as good as some of the Blue Planet footage shot from space that would be nothing short of miraculous... (finger's crossed)... ... "Big Blue???"... [I guess I have always been a huge fan of IMAX since the 1970s ... Love that vertigo effect of the extremely tall screen, and natural drop down viewing angle of the eye. [As a kid that Grand Canyon IMAX (I guess shot by Ron Goodman) is pretty much burnt onto my DNA (I think)... I got to fly in a helicopter (as a tourist and kid) over the Grand Canyon... and yet the IMAX was more thrilling and memorable.]. [More recently I also watched Interstellar IMAX (locally) a few years ago and was kinda disappointed that I could actually see and make out the square pixels on the screen (kinda distracting) ... So I hope they do bridge that gap! That would be amazing.].

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

@Phil GOOD LUCK on your project... Teaser to teaser trailer... Looks beautifully shot and graded (of course!).

 

[Phil Holland]

So are you hinting at the near future possibility of a 8K by 6k sensor from RED as that would cover the IMAX guys and pretty much all of the other applications you cite above? Also that would be very nice for stills DSMC (concept) [A real medium format!].

While there is indeed a RED Weapon Dragon 8K VV ANA, which features a 6:5 imaging plane (a smaller active area than 8K FF), I would hope that RED stays the course with their DCI standard sensor sizes. Most experienced cinematographers once they get their hands on a RED understand that the cameras are multi-resolution and multi-format systems.

I feel now that Monstro 8K VV is coming out in droves people will understand that the 4:3 aspect ratio at max resolution is both[video]http://phfx.com/tools/formatCompare/formatCompare.cgi?formatOne_typeTech=RED%7CMonstro +8K+VV&formatOne_format=6K+4%3A3&formatTwo_typeTech=Kodak%7CFilm&formatTwo_format=Super+35mm+4-Perf&focalLengths=[/video] and larger than Arri's soon-to-be previous generation's ALEV III in both format size and resolution.

I've had lots and lots of circular conversations regarding RED "needing to make a dedicated 4:3 sensor". There's literally no point to that. Especially now.

On a side note. Large format cinematographers have been hitting me up during the last year a lot in regards to glass in particular. Something that I think will be important for people to visualize is Monstro 8K VV/Dragon 8K VV at 8K FF versus the Alexa 65 @ 1.78:1. A great deal of A65 jobs shoot that format in particular both because of the glass coverage the general common aspect ratio. I guess while on that topic, it's good to look at RED 8K VV against the Sony Venice 6K 3:2.

If I need to peer into a crystal ball loaded with a bit of my own intentions I would hope that RED stays the course and provides these different sensor sizes and camera bodies to fit different markets. Right now there's A35 (Raven Dragon 4.5K), S35 (Scarlet-W Dragon 5K), S35+ (Dragon 6K/Helium 8K), VV+ (Dragon/Monstro 8K) solutions. If RED makes a bigger sensor beyond this they are tapping into a real specialty market as there are simply less glass options in comparison to VV, which I don't think is bad, but I don't know if that's "awesome" from a camera sales perspective. For me though, I feel RED is as close to creating the digital film alternative and doing it "right" with these different formats and sensor technologies. If they are still looking to keep the cameras small-ish, there is indeed a possible larger sensor size that could happen.

I'll say my standard line which I've been spitting since VV was announced however. In terms of large format cinematography, VV is the most flexible balance between format and glass options.

 

[PatrickFaith]

I learned a lot from reading through your article where you detailed a bunch of this info, http://www.phfx.com/articles/oneYearCapturedIn8K/ . I was specially interested in the shots you did with the Zeiss CZ 28-80mm, that lens seems like a real work horse.

On the story side of Dispatcher, if you wouldn't mind since it's not directly related to camera gear, I'd like to see if you did any artwork/storyboards and how close were they to your shoots?

 

[Phil Holland]

I learned a lot from reading through your article where you detailed a bunch of this info, http://www.phfx.com/articles/oneYearCapturedIn8K/ . I was specially interested in the shots you did with the Zeiss CZ 28-80mm, that lens seems like a real work horse.

On the story side of Dispatcher, if you wouldn't mind since it's not directly related to camera gear, I'd like to see if you did any artwork/storyboards and how close were they to your shoots?

That Zeiss CZ 28-80 has been my main jam for the VV when needing a zoom over these last few years. I picked it up back when I was filming Epic Dragon 6K S35. I'm not often filming with zooms, but when I need one I reallllllllly need one. That particular focal range is perfect for VV.

As for boards. A bit of a mix. Dispatcher came together essentially as I flew back from filming Qatar for a month. On the plane I did some sketches and brainstorming. Once I got home and hammered out the script I did a fairly standard shot list. I sort of go through a script a few times and "make the film" in my head to play out scenes. Once I was done with that process there was a really quick and nasty sketch session for some key shots, I'm talking real fast and dirty. I'll scan a few in, I got them in a binder somewhere.

The real reason for key frames/layout is more for envisioning the frame, camera height, lens. Also, if there's key props or gags that need to be revealed a certain way, that's super important to get some visual notes on. It goes a bit further when there's a few characters in frame and I'm looking to spice up dialogue and blocking. When I whack out a shot list I'm making notes like "CU, MS, WS, etc." and which focal length the shot is, standard stuff really. I'll sometimes make notes on camera height and movement right then. Then when I'm playing it out in my head that's where I feel I need to sketch a thumbnail if there's a composition I feel is super important.

So short answer, 100% was "shot listed", 70%-ish story boarded, there were a few real key layout drawings that I spent more than 20 seconds on as well.

 

[Eric Lange]

While there is indeed a RED Weapon Dragon 8K VV ANA, which features a 6:5 imaging plane (a smaller active area than 8K FF), I would hope that RED stays the course with their DCI standard sensor sizes. Most experienced cinematographers once they get their hands on a RED understand that the cameras are multi-resolution and multi-format systems.

I feel now that Monstro 8K VV is coming out in droves people will understand that the 4:3 aspect ratio at max resolution is both[video]http://phfx.com/tools/formatCompare/formatCompare.cgi?formatOne_typeTech=RED%7CMonstro +8K+VV&formatOne_format=6K+4%3A3&formatTwo_typeTech=Kodak%7CFilm&formatTwo_format=Super+35mm+4-Perf&focalLengths=[/video] and larger than Arri's soon-to-be previous generation's ALEV III in both format size and resolution.

I've had lots and lots of circular conversations regarding RED "needing to make a dedicated 4:3 sensor". There's literally no point to that. Especially now.

On a side note. Large format cinematographers have been hitting me up during the last year a lot in regards to glass in particular. Something that I think will be important for people to visualize is Monstro 8K VV/Dragon 8K VV at 8K FF versus the Alexa 65 @ 1.78:1. A great deal of A65 jobs shoot that format in particular both because of the glass coverage the general common aspect ratio. I guess while on that topic, it's good to look at RED 8K VV against the Sony Venice 6K 3:2.

If I need to peer into a crystal ball loaded with a bit of my own intentions I would hope that RED stays the course and provides these different sensor sizes and camera bodies to fit different markets. Right now there's A35 (Raven Dragon 4.5K), S35 (Scarlet-W Dragon 5K), S35+ (Dragon 6K/Helium 8K), VV+ (Dragon/Monstro 8K) solutions. If RED makes a bigger sensor beyond this they are tapping into a real specialty market as there are simply less glass options in comparison to VV, which I don't think is bad, but I don't know if that's "awesome" from a camera sales perspective. For me though, I feel RED is as close to creating the digital film alternative and doing it "right" with these different formats and sensor technologies. If they are still looking to keep the cameras small-ish, there is indeed a possible larger sensor size that could happen.

I'll say my standard line which I've been spitting since VV was announced however. In terms of large format cinematography, VV is the most flexible balance between format and glass options.

Goes without saying THANK YOU, for your immense generosity (in terms of sharing really decent info), here on RED and else where on the "Inter -Webs" ;-).

Working in reverse order...

I'll say my standard line which I've been spitting since VV was announced however. In terms of large format cinematography, VV is the most flexible balance between format and glass options

Yup I think that's almost indisputable. 100%.

If RED makes a bigger sensor beyond this they are tapping into a real specialty market as there are simply less glass options in comparison to VV, which I don't think is bad, but I don't know if that's "awesome" from a camera sales perspective.

1. For an even larger format; Shortage of lenses... ? I think that's a short term thing. Having worked with more unusual lenses from Carl Zeiss and also Schneider Kreuznach for 20 years +, You get to learn what they have sitting in "back rooms" as to special application lenses but also more recently you get to learn how these companies have also learned to become VERY agile. So if there was a need for a larger format lens they could do that (I reckon). Obviously some of the more high $ newer lenses have a bit of room to spare in their image circles. And yup I do understand also the relationship between affordable GOOD glass and the RED eco-system.

2. Sometimes really great and wonderful things don't always have to make perfect business sense immediately. History of successful tech is littered with such examples.

3. There is for some applications still large and awkward gaps that need to be bridged, but I get the distinct impression that it's actually not that easy to bridge those gaps (technically) right now. I would venture that that IS an equal "Co-factor" why we don't have a vertical number of photo-sites that is beyond 4K ish vertically. It will eventually happen but because of other more pressing technical needs rather than what is today a more numerous and standard work flow (Just my "vibe" or personal opinion, but no more than/ weak "Assertion".).

On a side note. Large format cinematographers have been hitting me up during the last year a lot in regards to glass in particular. Something that I think will be important for people to visualize is Monstro 8K VV/Dragon 8K VV at 8K FF versus the Alexa 65 @ 1.78:1. A great deal of A65 jobs shoot that format in particular both because of the glass coverage the general common aspect ratio. I guess while on that topic, it's good to look at RED 8K VV against the Sony Venice 6K 3:2.

That's very generous, with the comparisons.. I pretty much do the same with anything that's new out there with paper and pencil, drawing tools + calculator. (no need to go to CAD on that one).

The Sony newer Venice format looks pretty sweet. Given the history of various "Run-ins" that RED have had to deal with over the years I always feel awkward mentioning SONY or ARRI. More from an "Ethics" stand point than a technical one. Does anybody know what ARRI may be rolling out? [Spoliers etc. and is it any kind of temporary threat to Monstro V.V? ].

I feel now that Monstro 8K VV is coming out in droves people will understand that the 4:3 aspect ratio at max resolution is both[video]http://phfx.com/tools/formatCompare/formatCompare.cgi?formatOne_typeTech=RED%7CMonstro +8K+VV&formatOne_format=6K+4%3A3&formatTwo_typeTech=Kodak%7CFilm&formatTwo_format=Super+35mm+4-Perf&focalLengths=[/video] and larger than Arri's soon-to-be previous generation's ALEV III in both format size and resolution.

With regards to IMAX and "cropping in" digital "pick off the sensor"/real time (cropped in) format generation.... I'm going to stick my neck out (just for the hell of it) and say 4K vertical resolution does not = IMAX.

Like a crotchety old curmudgeon I have said for years and years in the digital photographic domain that "Quality" always ultimately gives way to convenience and expediency. But usually a minor trade off in terms of degraded "Quality" VS. a process that overall is far superior. With IMAX their identity is completely wrapped up in that format and to not digitally deliver that in a pure way (in my mind) IS a temporary stop-gap/fix. No doubt there could be some very good up-rezzing processes that could be rendered these days to give a more silky and high res and high depth look to things from a digital sensor with Bayer pattern that reads 4k vertically. But instinctively I feel that the IMAX guys could or should dig their heels in a bit more as their format IMO is VERY special indeed and to have that be reduced to a tweaked version of newer cinematic format like VV (as wonderful as it is ) seems to undercut ( a bit) what IMAX is all about (at least that's what I feel). But I don't work for IMAX so my opinion is 100% irrelevant. BUT I do have a real technical need for higher K in vertical photo sites on a sensor. It's always a bit awkward to not be using more standard cinematic
"Kit" to achieve a technical result for a "Cinematic" set of applications.

I agree a 4:3 (sensor only) is not ever very likely (unless a new set of Anamorphic lenses become "Pandemic" / hyper fashionable), but I do feel that higher K in a vertical matrix for a cimematic/technical sensor IS for right now a technical hurdle and specific challenge, not just a bad "Business" move .

For me it's sometimes important to "Map out" where the real technical limitations lie and also gauge how long those limitations are likely to stand or in some cases be forced to solve (gulp) some of those technical challenges in different ways. Sometimes "Pulling focus" on the real technical limitations is key to finding realistic and very good alternate solutions and methods.