Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 152 posts

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

#71

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

xdertz wrote: post #48
derbOac wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a complaint about your post but this stuff about film formats and aspect ratios has always had me scratching my head. For years I heard people arguing that wider aspect ratios were preferable because they afforded a wider view, and that narrower aspect ratios were too restrictive horizontally. This always seemed confusing to me because theoretically they should allow for more vertical space for the same width. No…

You can also watch 1.43:1 in a virtual cinema in VR.

Only if the media is published in that format.

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

#72

Post by nottorp »

dbspin wrote: post #34
nottorp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sad. A little more cheap colour correction and grading and we'll be back to b&w movies.

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

#73

Post by sgt »

gempir wrote: post #61
sgt wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was referring to regular 70mm, in which 65mm is for the picture and 5mm is to allow for the sound channels. I am not surprised - squeezing even more out of the film, that IMAX would just put audio separately.

I am also referring to regular 70mm, not IMAX, so is that part of the article. > 70mm film uses DTS audio, which is supplied to the cinema on either CD-ROMs, or (more recently) via USB sticks.

I have never seen that in real life though, only regular 70 mm film of which 65 mm is definitely used for the picture and audio channels for the rest. E.g Lawrence of Arabia

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

#74

Post by wuliwong »

rvschuilenburg wrote: post #25

I think it's interesting how we went from 4:3 to 16:9, and are now back to something very close to 4:3 again. And both changes were sold as "you can now see even more of the movie".

I'm a videography hobbyist, there is so much discussion about aspect ratios, particularly around anamorphic lenses. In those circles, wider aspect ratio is almost always considered better (there's more to anamorphics than just aspect ratio but that's separate from this discussion). I have felt the "wider is better" idea is not so much fundamental but more learned through seeing the widescreen in movie theaters which have massive screens with a crazy sound systems. But yea, seeing the opposite argued as seeing more of the movie is pretty funny. Feels pretty arbitrary but there probably is an idea aspect ratio. Probably 16x9. haha.

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

#75

Post by tshaddox »

derbOac wrote: post #27
davidferguson wrote: post #14

If you want a very in depth technical look at the differences between IMAX 70mm, 70mm and 35mm for _The Odyssey_, I wrote an article about this last month. https://www.theppt.org/rewind/articles/where-can-you-watch-t... But here are my nit-picks from the article linked here. I'm only commenting on the 15/70mm IMAX parts, because I'm not knowledgable enough about the digital IMAX foramats. > The extra resolution, up t…

Not a complaint about your post but this stuff about film formats and aspect ratios has always had me scratching my head. For years I heard people arguing that wider aspect ratios were preferable because they afforded a wider view, and that narrower aspect ratios were too restrictive horizontally. This always seemed confusing to me because theoretically they should allow for more vertical space for the same width. No…

Aspect ratio by itself tells you very little about the theatrical viewing experience. What really matters is the "angular image size," i.e. the horizontal and vertical angle that the image fills in your field of view. This is determined by the aspect ratio of the image, but also critically the size of the screen and the distance from the screen to the viewer.

1.43 IMAX screens are really really big and fill more of your field of view than most other cinema screens. You can't just look at the 1.43 aspect ratio and say "it's skinnier than 2.39 scope" or "it's wider than 2.39 anamorphic." It would be more accurate to say "in your field of view, it's both wider and taller than most theater's 2.39 anamorphic projection."

This is also why pleas for the 1.43 aspect ratio on home video are slightly misguided. It's not the shape of the 1.43 IMAX image that's so compelling. It's the angular image size! And you probably are not going to view an IMAX film at home with the intended image size. (To be clear, I think it would still be interesting to see that 1.43 image at home, and in VR it's reportedly an excellent experience.)

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

#76

Post by globular-toast »

rvschuilenburg wrote: post #25

I think it's interesting how we went from 4:3 to 16:9, and are now back to something very close to 4:3 again. And both changes were sold as "you can now see even more of the movie".

The sibling comments are spot on, but also worth noting IMAX is not something you're going to get at a regular multiplex, and definitely not at home. The screens are like 10 storeys high and designed to completely immerse you. While it's much better than 3D, for example, it's not supposed to be the new thing for all films.

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

#77

Post by tshaddox »

rvschuilenburg wrote: post #25

I think it's interesting how we went from 4:3 to 16:9, and are now back to something very close to 4:3 again. And both changes were sold as "you can now see even more of the movie".

If the angular image size (which is determined by the aspect ratio, screen size, and viewing distance) increases each time, it's accurate to say "you can now see even more of the movie."

And that is typically what happened. Typical 16:9 flatscreen TVs at home offer a larger angular image size than the typical 4:3 CRTs did. And typical 1.43 IMAX viewings offer a larger angular image size than typical 16:9 flatscreen TVs.

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

#78

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

derbOac wrote: post #27
davidferguson wrote: post #14

If you want a very in depth technical look at the differences between IMAX 70mm, 70mm and 35mm for _The Odyssey_, I wrote an article about this last month. https://www.theppt.org/rewind/articles/where-can-you-watch-t... But here are my nit-picks from the article linked here. I'm only commenting on the 15/70mm IMAX parts, because I'm not knowledgable enough about the digital IMAX foramats. > The extra resolution, up t…

Not a complaint about your post but this stuff about film formats and aspect ratios has always had me scratching my head. For years I heard people arguing that wider aspect ratios were preferable because they afforded a wider view, and that narrower aspect ratios were too restrictive horizontally. This always seemed confusing to me because theoretically they should allow for more vertical space for the same width. No…

> For years I heard people arguing that wider aspect ratios were preferable because they afforded a wider view > Now we're being told the opposite.

I agree with you, but I must also make a special case for IMAX 70mm. It's about the seating position. What we call IMAX 70mm now, was once just "IMAX" and its gimmick was a floor-to-ceiling wall-to-wall screen with a relatively close seating position, such that the viewer felt immersed in the movie. Back then it was commonly used for science documentaries where they could soar you over landscapes and in amongst the sea creatures. So this print of The Odyssey is allowing users to enjoy this same gimmick, but with a legit movie. I remember watching an earlier Nolan Batman film in an IMAX 70mm auditorium --while the picture quality was good, it was not shot to take up all the vertical real estate. So presumably they did not use IMAX cameras when filming (just normal 70mm).

As for widescreen, in ye olden times theatrical releases would use it as a gimmick for big visually impressive movies like Lawrence of Arabia. Eventually nearly every movie in the theater used a relatively wide aspect ratio, and as these were converted to VHS and DVD they were commonly butchered into a "full screen" format that erased the left and right part of the image. (They had to slide the view left and right to keep characters on the screen; people called this pan-and-scan.)

There's nothing inherently better about any particular aspect ratio IMO. What's most important is that you are seeing what the director wants you to see.

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

#79

Post by qingcharles »

davidferguson wrote: post #14

If you want a very in depth technical look at the differences between IMAX 70mm, 70mm and 35mm for _The Odyssey_, I wrote an article about this last month. https://www.theppt.org/rewind/articles/where-can-you-watch-t... But here are my nit-picks from the article linked here. I'm only commenting on the 15/70mm IMAX parts, because I'm not knowledgable enough about the digital IMAX foramats. > The extra resolution, up t…

18K seems high. I did some tests for Universal once and we pulled 10K from some 70mm IMAX ride prints. 8K was solid, 10K was very borderline.

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

#80

Post by isx726552 »

derbOac wrote: post #27
davidferguson wrote: post #14

If you want a very in depth technical look at the differences between IMAX 70mm, 70mm and 35mm for _The Odyssey_, I wrote an article about this last month. https://www.theppt.org/rewind/articles/where-can-you-watch-t... But here are my nit-picks from the article linked here. I'm only commenting on the 15/70mm IMAX parts, because I'm not knowledgable enough about the digital IMAX foramats. > The extra resolution, up t…

Not a complaint about your post but this stuff about film formats and aspect ratios has always had me scratching my head. For years I heard people arguing that wider aspect ratios were preferable because they afforded a wider view, and that narrower aspect ratios were too restrictive horizontally. This always seemed confusing to me because theoretically they should allow for more vertical space for the same width. No…

I bet it’s as simple as Nolan just wanting the biggest screen and biggest film negative he could practically get his hands on without inventing a whole new format. I do wonder if we’ll see him try to add anamorphic lenses to 15/70 IMAX at some point to try to make it widescreen again, which would be crazy (in a mad scientist way).

Also, I am kinda frustrated that he pushes for large formats so much and yet lights everything so plainly. I’d love to see him go for a more high-contrast lighting scheme like we saw in typical Hollywood movies in the 80s and 90s.

Post reply on HN