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

101–110 of 152 posts

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

#101

Post by SirMaster »

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".

There is more than the AR though, there's framing.

In 4:3 the framing is quite tight, and actors mostly fill the vertical space and the width feels somewhat constrained.

Widescreen movies are framed about the same height as 4:3, but with more space on the sides.

IMAX is filmed with the same width as widescreen movies, but with more space added to the top and bottom.

You can typically crop IMAX to widescreen without cutting off actors heads, but you cannot really do that with old 4:3 aspect shows or movies.

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

#102

Post by 0x457 »

fortran77 wrote: post #38

IMAX really cheapened their brand with the LIEMax format. Most "IMAX" are actually LIEMax, projecting a 4K image and not even with the extra tall IMAX aspect ratio.

Hence why people pilling up to see in IMAX 70mm. First, movies in that format usually intended to be seen in that format and second, saves you from LIEMax.

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

#103

Post by tuna74 »

sgt wrote: post #35

I've seen a real 70mm projection print, the sharpness combined with brightness is hard to describe. But nowadays I can't find anything close to me that has this option. What I do know is that most movies in cinemas these days aren't even close.

There are a lot of cinemas showing The Odyssey projected from actual 70 mm film. You can probably find one pretty close to you.

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

#104

Post by twothreeone »

fsh wrote: 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 agree, I actually saw specks when viewing the Odyssee on 70mm IMAX. Sorry, but how is that "better" than any clean, digital projection? And the hoops they apparently jump through to make it work during the shoot to get to that point. Pure nostalgia hysteria.

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

#105

Post by zipzinger »

rpdillon wrote: post #44
sgt wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Knowing nothing about this, it's a little bit wild to see two comments on the same page making diametrically opposed claims. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49122568 Does anybody have the technical knowledge to compare a RED video camera to 70mm IMAX (or maybe you just meant 70mm?)

It’s because the person in the comment you linked to is talking shite.

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

#106

Post by KaiserPro »

dbspin wrote: post #33
mariusmg wrote: post #29

>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…

disclaimer: I worked in a DI lab

second disclaimer, dbspin knows all this, this is aimed at the casual observer

About 2010 was the time that digital cameras were common enough and had enough dynamic range to make "better" looking 35mm than 35mm. There were caveats, certain hella expensive fujifilm stock still looked great and had decent enough resolution if you were skilled enough. (I'm not a DoP or lighting designer so take this with that in mind)

RED gets lots of credit, but frankly they were not that great, they had optical resolution, but not very good colour or dynamic range.

However, the most important point is this, most films from about 2006 were fed through DI. This means they were scanned in, degrained, conformed (so all shots from the same scene had the sameish histogram). Then the colourist would grade it all, give it a feel ( a bit like foley/music) and it'd be lasered back out to film or sent to be packaged into a DCI.

the "feel" of film is usually added or enhanced. modern film stock isn't grainy, unless you choose it to be. (compare layer cake to harry brown) "film-y ness is a choice, in the same way that "warm" analogue sound is a choice"

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

#107

Post by e0 »

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.

In his 60 Minutes profile, Nolan shows how The Odyssey was color corrected optically

    https://youtu.be/1GEqDZ3hQSo?si=8AP4TI9iY9otLrjM&t=271
I had the same question. I wondered why seeing a 70mm print was supposed to matter if it was going to get digitally edited and color graded anyhow. The answer turned out to be that neither of my speculations were true.

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

#108

Post by PaulHoule »

rayiner wrote: post #23

I enjoyed the Odyssey movie, but didn't think it looked that good. Too sharp and kind of fake looking, almost like TV. (To be fair, I don't live in a real city so we just have LieMAX.) Disappointing visually, but I did quite enjoy the "Braveheart meets Greek myth meets Jason Bourne" aspect of the whole thing.

Given that Hollywood is struggling to produce movies that people want to watch I don't think it is in their best interest to allocate much headspace at all to an experience just a few people will experience in a few Capital-C Capital Cities.

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

#109

Post by KaiserPro »

tshaddox wrote: post #75
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…

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 y…

> Aspect ratio by itself tells you very little about the theatrical viewing experience.

Yes, but also no.

to a whole generation of millenials -> boomers 4:3 == analogue and or cheap, "widescreen" is HD and better quality.

Thats why a lot of people were really happy to have streched 4:3->16:9 because wide screen == more modern and higher resolution. Unless you acutally care about that sort of thing you're never really twig that its just streched. I mean sure of you ask people about and compare side by side, they'll go "oh yeah"

The point now is that 4:3 is a allusion to a specific point in time, in the same way techincolour, or black and white, noir or infomercial are.

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

#110

Post by KaiserPro »

Marsymars wrote: post #90
qingcharles wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't want to particularly wade into an aspect ratio discussion, but the common thought around the standardization of 16:9 in home cinema/HDTV was due to the aspect ratio of human vision being somewhat of that ratio, due to use having two horizontally-spaced eyes.

wikipedia has the history of 16:9 - it originated as a compromise of the other popular aspect ratios at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9_aspect_ratio#History

14:9 IS THE BRITISH WAY
Post reply on HN