• remer@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I didn’t realize imax was still film. I figured it went digital with everything else.

      • FredericChopin_@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve not really been into films but recently I’ve started to pay more attention to directors and screen writers.

        I really want to watch Oppenheimer as it interests me but I really really want to watch it on 70mm IMAX, I am lucky enough to love 6 miles away from one and I don’t know if it will be that good or if the marketing team has done a hell of a job.

        I’ve been watching videos and reading up about IMAX and cinematography. Every showing is booked up for the first week that I checked. Even the 7am showings.

        How good is 70mm imax

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Our local one did, but I guess not all. It’s a shame, you used to be able to watch the film being wound through windows

    • maeries@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually it won’t. A movie on a 4k blu ray is around 80gb without additional compression. And Oppenheimer is shot on 70mm which is more like 8k resolution. Still would fit on a micro SD of course

  • arthurpizza@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Some things to keep in mind about the theater experience.

    • Only a handful of theaters do film IMAX anymore. A lot of IMAX locations are just 4k DCP (Digital Cinema Package)
    • Most theaters in the world are digital projectors with a max resolution of 1998x1080 or 2048x858

    Part of the reason these factors still exist is cost. A poorly maintained film projector with a lousy film print can ruin a movie going experience. Hollywood would sometimes release so very shitty prints. The digital projectors are much easier to maintain so the experience is often more ideal for the average movie goer.

    Having said that, if a theater takes good care of their film projectors and they have a well made and well kept print, the experience can be amazing.

    • atempuser23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you can see the film print in the opening week. Christopher Nolan makes his movies in an analog way. So it is a film process all the way though except for VFX. This is one of the only opportunities to see film that was not digitally modified. Only one place in the world can make these imax 70mm film prints and they are all basically hand made. EDIT: link changed to piped link. https://piped.video/watch?v=xa1xJIgLzFk

      2k digital projection is typically used in smaller theaters where the screen size is not large enough for anyone to actually see a difference.

      • gothicdecadence@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m going to see it in 70mm on the 28th and I’m sooo fucking excited! I got center seats near the back too, it’s gonna be epic. I wish there were more 70mm IMAX theaters so more people could experience it but I understand why there aren’t lol

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Question for anyone reading.

        I want to build a mancave downstairs, but I wouldn’t watch enough things to warrant a TV. I was thinking of buying a projector. Projectors used to be expensive, very expensive. Good projectors still seem to be, however now there are a plethora of cheap projectors on sites like Ali, Temu, Amazon, etc. Is it worth buying a high quality projector? Will I notice the difference? Or can I get away with a $40 projector bought off one of those sites?

        My plan would simply be to stream stuff off my phone. If a cheap projector is a bad idea, what is a good protector and how much would I need to pay? Also, anyone know what the best audio setup would be for this?

          • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think you are misunderstanding some assumptions.

            This will be for a “Manc-Ave” (SO ref) that I will likely, get maybe, at most a movies worth of my own time… And I do intend to watch all the scary moves that my wife won’t allow down there… so that’s a plus, although thet get boring quick.

        • Piers@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you’re looking to keep costs super low I imagine you’re better off going for a second hand projector over a cheap new one.

          • atempuser23@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That is what I did, just make sure that you can get a spare bulb for reasonable money. Some old projectors have EXPENSIVE bulbs

  • Tygr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If I pay to see a movie in an IMAX theater, this is the film being loaded? Is this normal for IMAX?

  • SrElsewhere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I read quite a few comments, admittedly not all. But I haven’t seen this asked.

    How is this 600 pounder handled? Forklift? Hoist? WTH?

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Smaller reels that are spliced together as they’re fed on the feed platter you see. My dad was a a projectionist, he’d make these up when a film arrived then break it down to ship it. I’d go on and help him as a kid.

  • FatherOfHoodoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This reminds me of one of those documentaries where they show some ridiculous mechanical contraption in a scene, and the narrator says, “Before the technology became extinct, it had become vastly more complex and sophisticated, but alas, it’s days were numbered…”

  • Plaid_Kaleidoscooe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is insane. I want to go watch this in IMAX so badly, but there are no IMAX theaters anywhere near me. Maybe one day I’ll get a chance. Do they ever reshow older IMAX movies? Like, I would kill to go back and see Interstellar or Dark Knight.

    • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why do people get so hyped for IMAX? There’s gotta be something more to it than just an even bigger screen, right?

      • Moose@moose.best
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The confusing part is there are different types of IMAX’s. My nearest cinema has IMAX screens but they are just slightly larger theatre screens for the most part. But downtown there’s a 70mm film IMAX and if a film was made for it, I’ll go out of my way to see it there - Interstellar and Dunkirk come to mind. Seats are closer to the screen and the aspect ratio is more square, and film just has a certain charm to it.

        • axtualdave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Many years ago, I ended up with a membership to a local museum that had a OMNIMAX theater, which is IMAX, but with a dome and a fisheye lens is used ot shoot the film. The projector is, essentially, in the middle of the room and shoots “up” at the screen / dome at about a 45 degree angle. The net result is the film is pretty much half-a-sphere in front of you. Your entire field of vision is filled by the media.

          They almost always showed educational films or documentaries specifically filmed for the format. I specifically recall some stupid one about snowboarding of all things, which was really just an excuse for the filmmakers to go snowboarding and ride helicopters with an expensive movie camera in the mountains. It’s very, very cool.

          Even if there aren’t any major studio movies made for these theaters, if you ever get a chance to see something on one of the few left in operation, take it. Totally worth it.

      • lotanis@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It basically a badge for a more premium film experience. It’s a bigger screen, on an aspect ratio that fills the vision, with seating that puts you in the right place, rather than trying to see over the person in front.

    • lobo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I dunno man, I’ve been to IMAX to see Dune in and it was so fucking loud i had to leave after 15 minutes, even with 1100 3M ear plugs which are like -30db.

    • Bucket_of_Truth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Probably not. 3 hours of uncompressed 1080p video is around 2tb. The film is closer to 16k which is 64 times more pixels than 1080p. This ain’t your web rip off pirate bay.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Surely even a lossless compression is incredibly smaller. (But you can’t truly losslessly convert from film to digital, only commenting on uncompressed 1080p.)

        • hughperman@mander.xyz
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          However, let’s not forget the whole thing was created digitally then “printed” to film, so there was never a “film original”.

          • TheOptimalGPU@lemmy.rentadrunk.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            He uses the camera negative as much as possible and avoids CGI as much as possible so a lot of film hasn’t been digitised and reprinted it’s from the actual source.

              • CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Christopher Nolan is famously one of the few big Hollywood directors who still shoots much of his footage on actual film, specifically in IMAX.

  • lingh0e@lemmy.film
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The film being that close to the edge of the platter gives me MASSIVE anxiety. I’ve dealt with brain wraps or film melting in the gate, but those are easy compared to film slinkying off the edge of the platter. Nothing like coming into a booth to find hundreds of feet of film in a rats nest of sadness and rainchecks.

    • player2@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was watching this video on IMAX film and noticed that the outside film is actually fixed in place and the reel unspools from the center and fills up the reel on the other rack. So fortunately it isn’t possible for it to unspools from the outside.
      https://youtu.be/gENOhw1Q3vM

      • Shurimal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wasn’t normal 35mm film about the equivalent of somewhere between 4k and 8k depending on the film stock?

        Plus, the projector optics will always limit the sharpness of the picture. No lense is ideal, and even ideal lenses would have fundamental limitations due to diffraction.

        • hungry_freaks_daddy@lemm.ee
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Something like that.

          As far as lens optics, we’re really splitting hairs here. 70mm through a quality lens in an imax theater is going to look absolutely fantastic and stunning. Digital is just more convenient and at some point it will catch up and surpass film.

          • Shurimal@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My point was more like that even IMAX film doesn’t quite get to 18k equivalent, more like 12 to 16k. Honestly, anything above 4k (for normal widescreen content) even on big screens is barely noticeable if noticeable at all. THX recommends that the screen should cover 40° of your FOV; IMAX is what, 70°, so 8k for it is already good enough. Extra resolution is not useful if human eye can’t tell the difference; it just gets to the meaningless bragging rights territory like 192 kHz audio and DAC-s with 140 dB+ S/N ratio. Contrast, black levels, shadow details, color accuracy are IMO more important than raw resolution at which modern 8k cameras are good enough and 16k digital cameras will be more than plenty.

      • average650@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think there’s any reason we couldn’t make a store 18k video.

        And we could make screen at much higher resolutions that that at imax size, or even quite a bit smaller, though I suspect it would be absurdly expensive.

        • fidodo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Storing it isn’t the problem, you’ll still need to be able to record and project at that resolution.

          • average650@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            As I said I’m sure we could make screens that could do that. They would be absurdly expensive and heavy and stupid, but it could be done. Not worth it though.

            And it looks like at least 16k cameras have been made.

            https://youtu.be/oIhCyPaDP6g

            • BURN@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              The screens aren’t the problem. It’s often the hardware driving it. The current top generation of gaming gpus struggles at 8k. There’s very little chance of being able to render and play 16/18k

              • hungry_freaks_daddy@lemm.ee
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Rendering video and rendering games are pretty different. Video is generally easier especially once it’s mixed down.

        • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          proprietary technology

          Not like the off the shelf stuff you can get to store and show 18K.

    • fernfrost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Resolution and color reproduction is still unmatched. Plus there are a lot of things happening in the analog domain that our eyes notice as beautiful.

      Same thing is true for analog vs digital music production btw

      • average650@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I can’t speak for video, but for audio production that isn’t true. Audio signals can be perfectly reproduced, up to some frequency determined by the sample rate and up to some noise floor determined by the bit depth, digitally. Set that frequency well beyond that of human hearings and set that noise floor beyond what tape can do or what other factors determine, and you get perfect reproduction.

        See here. https://youtu.be/UqiBJbREUgU

    • Adori@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Imax film is some of the highest resolution formats we have it’s like 16k resolution, and using that for a projector gets ya some really good quality.

      • *dust.sys@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Quality so good they can come back to it 20 years from now when blu-ray is an outdated format to make a higher-quality home release, like what’s been done with VHS to DVD or DVD to BD

    • biscuit@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree. Have you ever been to a real 70mm IMAX screening? I don’t mean your typical “IMAX”. There’s only a handful in the whole world.

      The quality is gorgeous, and the screens are huge. You also get significantly more of the frame than you will in traditional cinema and on bluray releases.

      Don’t call it unnecessary until you’ve actually seen it. Digital IMAX isn’t close yet.

      • arc@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The reason it’s unnecessary is that digital can completely capture a 70mm in high enough resolution that you perceive no difference at all. 8 or 16K projection is completely feasible in commercial projection systems. It means the cinema only has to deal with a small box instead of an enormous roll of film.

        That doesn’t mean either digital IMAX since that’s old tech using something like 2K projection which isn’t adequate.

    • Jefflix@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well you could argue making movies is unnecessary altogether. This is art and this is the medium used by the artist.

      It’s not about image quality of film vs digital, it’s about the feel and texture of the experience as a whole.

      Just knowing there is an actual film being rolled and having light shun through it while watching it is part of that experience.

      • arc@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you can’t tell the difference on the screen it should make no damn odds how the image was stored.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I used to be a projectionist at an art house theater. We just did 16 mm prints. Just imagining this going wrong due to some threading issue and the film going everywhere is giving me anxiety.