Live data from Hacker News

IMAX vs. IMAX 70mm: The difference between these two cinema formats

engadget.com

31–40 of 152 posts

Re: IMAX vs. IMAX 70mm: The difference between these two cinema formats

#31

This is purely my opinion. I see 70mm as mostly a movie scam to extort exorbitant amounts of cash from a ticket for something that's vaguely noticeable outside the aspect ratio itself. Note that I'm not disputing that there is a visual difference, there is, the image is clearer, shaper, with better darks, but the entry fee paired with how out of the way 70mm is, it's just ends up feeling like FOMO. My opinion doesn't…

I am with you. I completely believe that the difference is there and that it is probably more immersive.

However, these discussions always feel similar to MP3 192kbit/s vs AAC 256kbit/s vs lossless vs lossless 24-bit 192KHz. Trained listeners can hear the difference between MP3 192kbit and AAC 256 kbit. Perhaps even AAC 256kbit vs lossless. But IRL it does not matter:

- Some people listen on very crappy headphones/speakers.

- Some people listen on good headphones with AAC, but even with AAC on, external sound leakage probably has a larger effect on the perceived signal than compression artifacts of AAC 256kbit/s.

- Most of the time people listen to music in the background, so there is not a lot of attention on it anyway.

- Many (most?) people primarily listen to melody and lyrics and not to the fine grained details of how the instruments sound.

Similarly, a lot of people who watch movies, as long as the image/audio quality is good enough, they focus on the storyline, the dialogs, the general atmosphere, etc.

I am not denying that there is a market for audiophile audio or the best quality image for movie visuals buffs, but for most people these are just overpriced gimmicks. I mean, we used to watch movies at home on crappy, small CRT TVs, and many of us still have fond memories of many movies despite seeing it in a format that could as well be from the stone age compared to even a standard projector used in an average cinema nowadays.

To avoid any straw manning: I am certainly in favor of all the improvements in tech we have seen, it's more that the experience does not linearly with it. More like exponential saturation.

Re: IMAX vs. IMAX 70mm: The difference between these two cinema formats

#32
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much can we trust the "Reddit IMAX community"? The people heavily invested in a technology as their hobby aren't always the best sources of objective technical information; is /r/imax more of an "audiophile forum" or more of a forum of people who actually know their stuff?

What is inaccurate about this size comparison? * https://old.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/1tw4jyy/psa_70mm_and_... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBEcjZN8io Certainly we need to be mindful of biases, but you can also simply be falling into a tu quoque , ad hominem fallacy. At the end of the day, are these 'fancy' theatre experiences (IMAX and the others out there) worth the extra ticket price to you? Certainly Chri…

The interesting question isn't "what's biggest" but what's the best viewing experience.

Re: IMAX vs. IMAX 70mm: The difference between these two cinema formats

#33

>To understand IMAX, it helps to know how movies are captured in the first place. Many are shot digitally, as it's cheaper and more convenient than using film. However, many filmmakers still want, well, film The illogical part about this process is that they convert the shot film to digital, they add CGI and color correction and then they print back the digital version to....film. So the whole point of shooting a Hol…

Some directors like the appearance of film... Given that the spectacle is a large part of the reason we go to the cinema, the colour fidelity and (and in the case of IMAX) unique scale and aspect ratio are the point... Not sure why practicality or cost would override that?

As a director who doesn't shoot on film - I still see the appeal, there's a particular quality to skin tones - especially in response to older arc lights and the like - that digital still doesn't quite capture. Ditto motion cadence, halation and grain that are all emulated in digital post to greater or lesser degrees of fidelity.

Re: IMAX vs. IMAX 70mm: The difference between these two cinema formats

#34
post #16
post #9

IMHO, the only reasons for using 70 mm IMAX are nostalgia and marketing. Digital movie cameras have far better color reproduction, more dynamic range, zero frame jitter, and plenty of resolution without grain. They are also small and silent which allows far more interesting shots than what is possible with a 70 mm monster. Kubrick and Lean used 70 mm because it was the best technology available at the time. Today, th…

I'd say one of the advantages of analog filming is it's more expensive to "color correct" digitally after. So maybe you get less monochrome films?

Every film is colour corrected and graded digitally (in addition to all the special effects and compositing work), and this is in fact one of the cheapest parts of the process. So no, it's not remotely a consideration.

Re: IMAX vs. IMAX 70mm: The difference between these two cinema formats

#36
post #13
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much can we trust the "Reddit IMAX community"? The people heavily invested in a technology as their hobby aren't always the best sources of objective technical information; is /r/imax more of an "audiophile forum" or more of a forum of people who actually know their stuff?

Passionate hobbyists are often a great source of technical information, and usually more objective than industry sources. The thing to watch out for is people who have become so absorbed by their hobby, they start to put great subjective weight on distinctions that would be without difference to a "normal" person. Audio gear, gourmet food, fine wine, running shoes... It's XKCD 915 all the way down. I also recommend P…

I think we're giving too much credit to audiophiles. We're talking people who might have discussions on their forums about whether audio buffers in memory allocated with malloc or in memory allocated with C++'s `new` sounds best. Stuff which doesn't have "microscopic effects dwarfed by other factors" but stuff which has literally no effect.

Re: IMAX vs. IMAX 70mm: The difference between these two cinema formats

#37
post #2

I'm curious about the opinions on 70mm (non-IMAX) vs Digital IMAX. What do you prefer if you have tried both. Because those are the only mostly accessible options around the world. Sound is also something to consider, because depending on the Theater they might have wildy different sound setups even different audio standards.

Tried both, 70mm (65mm is video, 5mm is audio) is just superior in every way. There's nothing out there that compares, digital projections are still far behind.

Re: IMAX vs. IMAX 70mm: The difference between these two cinema formats

#39
post #37
post #2

I'm curious about the opinions on 70mm (non-IMAX) vs Digital IMAX. What do you prefer if you have tried both. Because those are the only mostly accessible options around the world. Sound is also something to consider, because depending on the Theater they might have wildy different sound setups even different audio standards.

Tried both, 70mm (65mm is video, 5mm is audio) is just superior in every way. There's nothing out there that compares, digital projections are still far behind.

Hmm are you sure 5mm is audio?

This article claims Audio is added via USB Stick or CD

https://www.theppt.org/rewind/articles/where-can-you-watch-t...

Re: IMAX vs. IMAX 70mm: The difference between these two cinema formats

#40
post #33

>To understand IMAX, it helps to know how movies are captured in the first place. Many are shot digitally, as it's cheaper and more convenient than using film. However, many filmmakers still want, well, film The illogical part about this process is that they convert the shot film to digital, they add CGI and color correction and then they print back the digital version to....film. So the whole point of shooting a Hol…

Some directors like the appearance of film... Given that the spectacle is a large part of the reason we go to the cinema, the colour fidelity and (and in the case of IMAX) unique scale and aspect ratio are the point... Not sure why practicality or cost would override that? As a director who doesn't shoot on film - I still see the appeal, there's a particular quality to skin tones - especially in response to older arc…

I don’t understand how even the preference for shooting on film makes any sense if you’re digitizing, heavily processing, adding entirely digital elements …

I get putting the final edit to film.

If you’re not doing all that additional garbage, then capturing on film, going digital for basic editing, then back to film might make sense.

Post reply on HN