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

41–50 of 152 posts

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

#41

Post by anonymous_user9 »

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…

It's not illogical, because film behaves differently than CMOS/CCD image sensors. Film scanners can then digitize the film's nuances more very accurately, resulting in an digital image with better dynamic range etc.

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

#42

Post by zos_kia »

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…

I don't think it's as illogical as it sounds. The qualities of the signal you feed your digital pipeline are very important to the finished product. And i'm using the plural intentionally here : not quality as in "it's better" but qualities as in "it has specific characteristics".

I can more easily relate to music production which i have passing experience with. The analog would be : if you plug your guitar directly in a preamplified audio card, you'll get the cleanest possible signal, right ? Then you'd just have to post-process it through a virtual cabinet and a bunch of effects to get exactly the sound you want. Except in most cases you'll get better results by plugging a guitar on an amplifier and putting that amp in a room with a microphone pointing to it. All that hardware will natively give you a better sound than you could achieve with reasonable effort on a fully digital workflow. Not better quality (in fact you're probably losing definition on that signal at several points in the chain), but qualities that on average will make the sound more pleasing to the ear. You can still manipulate the sound with virtual effects all you want, it will still retain the "grain" of the original setup.

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

#43

Post by dbspin »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #40
dbspin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, let me explain it to you.

The end result is not recreatable with digital assets. i.e.: It doesn't matter your budget, we cannot currently simulate the look of the original footage shot on 35 (let alone 70mm, forget about IMAX 80mm) by shooting digitally.

Also what you're referring to as 'garbage', is colour grading and composite work. It's not adulteration, it's an essential create part of the filmmaking work. Whether you're doing it exclusively as part of the development process of the physical film, or digitally in Nuke or Resolve etc.

Your inability to understand why people do things in a domain you're not familiar with is indicative of gaps in your knowledge, not the futility of the process. Lots of information about how and why all this works as it does online.

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

#44

Post by rpdillon »

sgt wrote: post #37
gempir wrote: 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.

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?)

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

#45

Post by ant6n »

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".

It went much farther - CinemaScope 2.35 to 2.75, or even Polyvision 4.0.

To me, the big wide screen Hollywood titles are 2.35:1.

To me IMAX 70 is cropped on the left and right compared to CinemaScope. Watching an IMAX 70 film in a normal theatre at wide screen aspect ratio crops the film again, so it’s effectively cropped on all four sides.

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

#46

Post by rpdillon »

AdamN wrote: post #22
dudefeliciano wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that has to do with the marketing and all the memes about how much "less" of the film you see if not watching it on 70mm IMAX

Which is true. He didn't shoot in 35mm so if you want to get the full shot on the screen you must go to an IMAX theater.

It's an interesting choice as an artist to produce work for mass consumption that 99% of the population will never be able to experience as intended.

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

#47

Post by ubercore »

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…

Originally a lot of HDTV would present SDTV with black bars on the sides. People don't like it.

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

#48

Post by xdertz »

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…

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

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

#49

Post by snowwrestler »

The DC area used to have two IMAX theaters with film projectors: one at the Natural History museum, and one at the Air & Space museum.

The one at Natural History lost tons of money. They eventually took it out, sold it for parts, and replaced it with offices and a cafe (which does make money).

They kept the theater at Air & Space, but converted it to IMAX digital. As a result, they are able to easily show pretty much any first-run movie, as well as revivals. That helps them sell a lot more tickets.

The real essential difference in IMAX is the physical shape of the theater. A real IMAX theater has very steep seats that are close to an absolutely huge screen, with huge speakers behind it. As opposed to the “IMAX” found in cineplexes where they just took their largest theater and upgraded the projector.

Films really should be shot differently for IMAX. Closeups need to be a lot less close up. People shouldn’t have to turn their heads side to side just to see one or the other eye of your character. IMO it’s a mixed result in The Odyssey. Directors just can’t resist closeups of actors. And the movie needs to work in regular theaters where most people will see it.

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

#50

Post by scrlk »

dudefeliciano wrote: post #15
ramesh31 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Certainly Christopher Nolan thinks so since he was willing to put up with the hassle of the IMAX gear for months on end (including airlifting them up to top of mountains), but what will you get out of it watching is something on you can answer." The 70MM IMAX showings at Lincoln Square are still completely sold out 4x/day for the next month. People are filling the theater at 6AM on a Saturday to see it. The market…

I think that has to do with the marketing and all the memes about how much "less" of the film you see if not watching it on 70mm IMAX

1.43 IMAX isn't exclusive to 15/70mm, it can also be screened with IMAX's dual laser projection system.
Post reply on HN