Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

design219 · May 8, 2007, 06:11 PM

http://posterwire.com/image.php?img_...0the%20Phoenix

I didn't know IMAX did this.

Jawbone54 · 06:53 PM

Hey...there's something different about that poster on the right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rumor · May 8, 2007, 06:38 PM

Uh, what?

sek929 · May 8, 2007, 06:40 PM

"We need to convey the idea that IMAX is way better than a normal theater...ummm....give her larger breasts I guess."

BlueSky · May 8, 2007, 06:55 PM

It appears the girl on the right is pre-photoshopped, so they apparently grabbed the wrong picture.

OwlBoy · May 8, 2007, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by BlueSky

It appears the girl on the right is pre-photoshopped, so they apparently grabbed the wrong picture.

Good catch.

-Owl

design219 · 09:25 PM

It appears the girl on the right is pre-photoshopped, so they apparently grabbed the wrong picture.

No, I don't think so.

Looks like heavier jpeg compression artifacts on the right one. I think they are both finished. Look at the details other place than just her face and you will see the degridation is more all over the right one.

Eriamjh · May 8, 2007, 09:13 PM

Isn't she like 15?

design219 · May 8, 2007, 09:26 PM

Yes, so 15 year old boys will want to see it in IMAX.

centerchannel68 · May 8, 2007, 10:02 PM

Isn't the kid in the center the guy who posed naked with the horse?

Oneota · May 8, 2007, 10:07 PM

(Last edited by Jawbone54 : Today at 06:53 PM (Reason: Not enough exclamation points.))

Dakarʒ · May 8, 2007, 10:12 PM

Pardon me, I have to got the bathroom a minute.

RAILhead · May 8, 2007, 10:13 PM

Wikipedia says she's 17.

Wiskedjak · May 8, 2007, 10:15 PM

Not the first time this has happened:

invisibleX · May 8, 2007, 10:16 PM

I tried to find it but I can only wade through so much harry potter porn-fan-fiction.. but there is an explanation out there...

red rocket · May 9, 2007, 04:31 AM

It's not proper IMAX, distortion is to be expected. It's the inferior IMAX DMR: digitally remastered 35mm footage blown up to faux IMAX, rather than 70mm 70,000,000 pixel IMAX footage. Then there's the fake 3D process on top of it. You'll notice, they even tampered with Hermione's hair on the IMAX 3D poster.

Somewhat on topic:

Dakarʒ · May 9, 2007, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ

Pardon me, I have to got the bathroom a minute.

...and I'm back.

Wiskedjak · May 9, 2007, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ

...and I'm back.

9 hours?!?

Wiskedjak · May 9, 2007, 07:31 AM

Back on topic ... I'm seeing every movie in IMAX from now on

Dakarʒ · May 9, 2007, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

9 hours?!?

Yeah, I could use a nap. And an IV of fluids.

Dakarʒ · May 9, 2007, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by red rocket

I've got to imagine her drugged out look in the photo only enhances her desirability to some*

*me

design219 · May 9, 2007, 08:07 AM

It's polyjuice potion. That's really Ron.

centerchannel68 · May 9, 2007, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ

I've got to imagine her drugged out look in the photo only enhances her desirability to some*

*me

You've never been with a stoned chick before eh?

Oh. Nicely put.

Dakarʒ · May 9, 2007, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

You've never been with a stoned chick before eh?

No actually.

Laminar · May 9, 2007, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by design219

http://posterwire.com/image.php?img_...0the%20Phoenix

I didn't know IMAX did this.

She went from an A to an A and a quarter. What's the big deal?

centerchannel68 · May 9, 2007, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ

No actually.

Sucky. I suggest you try it.

Dakarʒ · May 9, 2007, 09:16 AM

Sucky?

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

I suggest you try it.

I'm surprised you would recommend this.

centerchannel68 · May 9, 2007, 09:25 AM

Sucky that you haven't. I've been with a few chicks that were stoned, and it's always been an excellent adventure.

Back on topic:

Dakarʒ · May 9, 2007, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

Sucky that you haven't.

I think I'll survive.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

I've been with a few chicks that were stoned, and it's always been an excellent adventure.

I'd think you'd want to be the one who's stoned.

design219 · 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

I've been with a few chicks that were stoned, and it's always been an excellent adventure.

My esteem of you drops with every post.

centerchannel68 · May 9, 2007, 09:31 AM

Did you mean esteem? They were my girlfriends at the time, so don't think I was taking advantage of anybody, I don't do that.

Laminar · May 9, 2007, 09:33 AM

Unless they deserve it.

BlueSky · May 9, 2007, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by design219

No, I don't think so.

Looks like heavier jpeg compression artifacts on the right one. I think they are both finished. Look at the details other place than just her face and you will see the degridation is more all over the right one.

That's splotchiness and uneven skin tones, which was corrected in Photoshop. Also, look at her hair, which was tamed. In the right one, it covers up more of the background character's face.

highstakes · May 9, 2007, 10:04 AM

Imax one looks lot less photochopped

highstakes · May 9, 2007, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

Back on topic:

design219 · May 9, 2007, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by BlueSky

That's splotchiness and uneven skin tones, which was corrected in Photoshop. Also, look at her hair, which was tamed. In the right one, it covers up more of the background character's face.

Look at the space between the left two characters. It still looks to me like compression artifacts. I also think the hair was made more wild in the right photo.

But, only her hairdresser knows for sure.

BlueSky · May 9, 2007, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by design219

Look at the space between the left two characters. It still looks to me like compression artifacts. I also think the hair was made more wild in the right photo.

But, only her hairdresser knows for sure.

It would make more sense that her boobies were reduced for safe teenage consumption (left figure) than the other way around. Anyway, line 'em up in Photoshop and see for yourself. There's also more "idealized" shading and shaping in her face on the Photoshopped one.

Here ya go...

I'm such the nerd.

Dakarʒ · May 9, 2007, 10:25 AM

*fap fap fap*

ghporter · May 9, 2007, 11:02 AM

The poster on the right has a different pose for Hermione than the one on the left. She's turned from almost totally profile to somewhat closer to a 3/4 angle. The artwork is also "differently massaged", so she looks a lot different, but then all the pictures in the left poster look more saturated and higher contrast while all the pictures in the right poster look less saturated and more "dramatic."

Laminar · May 9, 2007, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

The poster on the right has a different pose for Hermione than the one on the left. She's turned from almost totally profile to somewhat closer to a 3/4 angle. The artwork is also "differently massaged", so she looks a lot different, but then all the pictures in the left poster look more saturated and higher contrast while all the pictures in the right poster look less saturated and more "dramatic."

Are you sure it's a different pose? It looks to me like they just enhanced the shoulder.

Dakarʒ · May 9, 2007, 11:06 AM

Judging by BlueSky's work, I'm guessing ghporter is getting fooled by the fact that they lightened the shadows on her face, making it look like she's showing more.

Wiskedjak · May 9, 2007, 11:08 AM

They're both photoshopped. The one on the right looks like version A, while the one on the left looks like version B after comments from Marketing.

design219 · May 9, 2007, 11:23 AM

'POTTER' RACKS UP INTEREST By ANGELA MONTEFINISE - Nationalnews - New York Post Online Edition

The New York Post is on it.

I love the headline.

BlueSky · May 9, 2007, 11:27 AM

Maybe she's a witch and she's screwin' with our heads.

Laminar · May 9, 2007, 11:31 AM

And here's the version of the poster they're using for advertisement in FHM.

ghporter · May 9, 2007, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ

Judging by BlueSky's work, I'm guessing ghporter is getting fooled by the fact that they lightened the shadows on her face, making it look like she's showing more.

The lines on the sweater look different, and her position in front of the guy to her right is different. I took the different lighting into account, but it looks like the pose is slightly different too. For what it's worth, it looks like the LEFT picture is more Photoshopped than the one on the right; the images are just too perfect.

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

Back on topic:

That image (or set of images) is disturbing on a number of levels. Thank you. I think.