4 ms·

IMAX was once supposed to deliver the best image quality possible. Nowadays, digital cameras are superior to 70 mm film in every possible way, especially color

by fsh 3y ago

IMAX was once supposed to deliver the best image quality possible. Nowadays, digital cameras are superior to 70 mm film in every possible way, especially color accuracy and dynamic range. It is really time to stop this pretentious analogue nonsense.

cush 3y ago
Who are you to say how someone else’s film should be viewed…?
ecshafer 3y ago
Film still looks better than digital. Quality of film is has many aspects, some of which are really more aesthetic aspects than purely technical. Watching a film from film really just has this feeling which digital can't reproduce.
asow92 3y ago
As someone who has shot a lot of medium format film and digital, what I've gathered is it's the Wabi-sabi imperfections of film—the dream like quality that can be captured in camera—that people appreciate the most about it. People like it precisely because it is inaccurate. Both are just tools and have their appropriate uses.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  70mm though has so much resolution, its probably better than a lot of digital sensors I’d expect.
  - asow92 3y ago
    Sensor size matters just as much as resolution, and this is because a small sensor with a higher resolution is going to collect less light than a large sensor with a lower resolution. This property applies to both film and digital where film grains and digital pixel sizes are analogous.
appletrotter 3y ago
I hate this.
tshaddox 3y ago
Have you seen a film shot and projected in 70mm IMAX on an IMAX GT screen?
evanreichard 3y ago
Doesn’t matter. Nolan’s vision specifically accounts for film. He’s been very vocal that the most accurate way to view the movie as he envisioned it is via 70mm IMAX. “For Nolan, the “best possible experience” to view “Oppenheimer” in theaters is the IMAX 70mm film presentations.” [0] I think I’ll watch it as the director intended it to be watched. [0] https://apnews.com/article/oppenheimer-christopher-nolan-0f8c1fdc4a358decee6105cac91a90ae https://apnews.com/article/oppenheimer-christopher-nolan-0f8...
- manuelmoreale 3y ago
  I respect the man but it sucks that his vision is only available to a small % of the population. I’d have to fly to a different country to get access to an IMAX 70mm
  - johnwalkr 3y ago
    Yeah, that's what I have to do unfortunately (of course doing/seeing other things to the trip too).
  - tshaddox 3y ago
    To be fair, in most cases only cinema enthusiasts really need to concern themselves with what the director's ideal presentation is. The overwhelming majority of people probably couldn't even recount to you which movies they've seen in which formats. For someone (like yourself) who is aware of and interested in the differences in presentational formats, it does suck that formats like IMAX 1570 have very few locations around the world (heck, that's even true of IMAX GT). But it wouldn't be any better for you if those formats just didn't exist at all! Perhaps one could argue that, because the IMAX GT exists, Christopher Nolan is making filmmaking decisions that compromise how the film will end up looking on more traditional (e.g. 2.39:1) presentational formats. Or in other words, one might argue "Oppenheimer would look better on 2.39:1 if Nolan had shot it specifically for 2.39:1." But I tend to think that Nolan probably realizes that the vast majority of people won't see it in IMAX, and I doubt the compromises are significant.
- Timon3 3y ago
mafuyu 3y ago
This is such a tired argument nowadays. Yes, at some point it is about the directors style and artistic vision. Yes, film _still_ has some technical advantages over digital for cine, especially if the director is shooting at a larger format size. Yes, good color graders can take footage from an ARRI and make it look like a certain film stock. No, it’s not that easy to do. Yes, you lose effective resolution taking a bayer filtered image and then converting it to monochrome with the appropriate spectral sensitivity. Yes, ARRIs have a lot of dynamic range now, but they need to leave much more headroom with digi to recover the highlights. Yes, grain is pleasing, and is an important part of the way the image is perceived (see: Arris various new looks in their new camera, that directly modify how the sensor is configured for different grain styles) The main advantage of digital in cine is that you can shoot and reshoot without dealing with the cost and logistics of film. But it’s Nolan’s summer blockbuster in IMAX format, I think they’ll be alright.
johnwalkr 3y ago
Depending on who you ask, 70mm film is equivalent of 12-20k resolution which is kind of nice given that the screen are 25m wide. You may be right on the other specific points you mentioned but I am quite excited to see this version of the movie and compare it to a typical blockbuster.
johnwalkr 3y ago
Depending on who you ask, 70mm film is equivalent of 12-20k resolution which is kind of nice given that the screen are 25m wide. You may be right on the other points but for existing theatres it's still the best in some ways.

by fsh 3y ago

cush 3y ago

Who are you to say how someone else’s film should be viewed…?

ecshafer 3y ago

Film still looks better than digital. Quality of film is has many aspects, some of which are really more aesthetic aspects than purely technical. Watching a film from film really just has this feeling which digital can't reproduce.

asow92 3y ago

As someone who has shot a lot of medium format film and digital, what I've gathered is it's the Wabi-sabi imperfections of film—the dream like quality that can be captured in camera—that people appreciate the most about it. People like it precisely because it is inaccurate. Both are just tools and have their appropriate uses.

kjkjadksj 3y ago
70mm though has so much resolution, its probably better than a lot of digital sensors I’d expect.
- asow92 3y ago
  Sensor size matters just as much as resolution, and this is because a small sensor with a higher resolution is going to collect less light than a large sensor with a lower resolution. This property applies to both film and digital where film grains and digital pixel sizes are analogous.

appletrotter 3y ago

I hate this.

tshaddox 3y ago

Have you seen a film shot and projected in 70mm IMAX on an IMAX GT screen?

evanreichard 3y ago

Doesn’t matter. Nolan’s vision specifically accounts for film. He’s been very vocal that the most accurate way to view the movie as he envisioned it is via 70mm IMAX. “For Nolan, the “best possible experience” to view “Oppenheimer” in theaters is the IMAX 70mm film presentations.” [0] I think I’ll watch it as the director intended it to be watched. [0] https://apnews.com/article/oppenheimer-christopher-nolan-0f8c1fdc4a358decee6105cac91a90ae https://apnews.com/article/oppenheimer-christopher-nolan-0f8...

manuelmoreale 3y ago
I respect the man but it sucks that his vision is only available to a small % of the population. I’d have to fly to a different country to get access to an IMAX 70mm
- johnwalkr 3y ago
  Yeah, that's what I have to do unfortunately (of course doing/seeing other things to the trip too).
- tshaddox 3y ago
  To be fair, in most cases only cinema enthusiasts really need to concern themselves with what the director's ideal presentation is. The overwhelming majority of people probably couldn't even recount to you which movies they've seen in which formats. For someone (like yourself) who is aware of and interested in the differences in presentational formats, it does suck that formats like IMAX 1570 have very few locations around the world (heck, that's even true of IMAX GT). But it wouldn't be any better for you if those formats just didn't exist at all! Perhaps one could argue that, because the IMAX GT exists, Christopher Nolan is making filmmaking decisions that compromise how the film will end up looking on more traditional (e.g. 2.39:1) presentational formats. Or in other words, one might argue "Oppenheimer would look better on 2.39:1 if Nolan had shot it specifically for 2.39:1." But I tend to think that Nolan probably realizes that the vast majority of people won't see it in IMAX, and I doubt the compromises are significant.
Timon3 3y ago

mafuyu 3y ago

This is such a tired argument nowadays. Yes, at some point it is about the directors style and artistic vision. Yes, film _still_ has some technical advantages over digital for cine, especially if the director is shooting at a larger format size. Yes, good color graders can take footage from an ARRI and make it look like a certain film stock. No, it’s not that easy to do. Yes, you lose effective resolution taking a bayer filtered image and then converting it to monochrome with the appropriate spectral sensitivity. Yes, ARRIs have a lot of dynamic range now, but they need to leave much more headroom with digi to recover the highlights. Yes, grain is pleasing, and is an important part of the way the image is perceived (see: Arris various new looks in their new camera, that directly modify how the sensor is configured for different grain styles) The main advantage of digital in cine is that you can shoot and reshoot without dealing with the cost and logistics of film. But it’s Nolan’s summer blockbuster in IMAX format, I think they’ll be alright.

johnwalkr 3y ago

Depending on who you ask, 70mm film is equivalent of 12-20k resolution which is kind of nice given that the screen are 25m wide. You may be right on the other specific points you mentioned but I am quite excited to see this version of the movie and compare it to a typical blockbuster.

johnwalkr 3y ago

Depending on who you ask, 70mm film is equivalent of 12-20k resolution which is kind of nice given that the screen are 25m wide. You may be right on the other points but for existing theatres it's still the best in some ways.