8 ms·

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

90 points by ksec 3mo ago

ErenayDev 3mo ago
Maybe related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49026846 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49026846
gempir 3mo ago
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.
- throw0101a 3mo ago
  I've seen non-IMAX 70mm referred to 5/70 because the image uses five perforations per frame; IMAX 70mm is then 15/70 because it uses fifteen perforations. Digital IMAX is much bigger: * https://old.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/pysn87/tremendously_helpful_imax_ratio_guide/ https://old.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/pysn87/tremendously_h... * https://old.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/1405mz0/standard_70mm_nonimax_vs_dual_laser_imax_on/ https://old.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/1405mz0/standard_70mm...
  - mort96 3mo ago
    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?
    - throw0101a 3mo ago
      What is inaccurate about this size comparison? * https://old.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/1tw4jyy/psa_70mm_and_imax_70mm_are_not_the_same_thing/ https://old.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/1tw4jyy/psa_70mm_and_... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBEcjZN8io 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 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. Of course the largest complaint I tend to hear about Nolan films is the audio mixing, not the visuals.
      - ramesh31 3mo ago
        >"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 has clearly spoken.
        dudefeliciano 3mo ago
        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
        AdamN 3mo ago
        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.
        rpdillon 3mo ago
        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.
        AdamN 3mo ago
        The eyepieces (and editing views) on that equipment shows the other aspect ratios so they know what will be in and out for the other 99%. Anyway plenty of art is only consumable by the 1%.
        scrlk 3mo ago
        1.43 IMAX isn't exclusive to 15/70mm, it can also be screened with IMAX's dual laser projection system.
        deleted 3mo ago
    - jl6 3mo ago
      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 Penn & Teller: Bullshit! S03E12 ("The Best") on this subject. Good for the hobbyists, if it enhances their enjoyment, but if you're a casual, microscopic variations are going to be dwarfed by other factors.
      - mort96 3mo ago
        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.
- ungreased0675 3mo ago
  For me, sound is more impactful than screen resolution or aspect ratio. Subwoofer arrays powerful enough for the audience to feel sub-bass are expensive, large, and need to be placed precisely in the room. I don’t think I’ve ever been in a movie theater that had acoustics rivaling a top-tier music venue or concert hall.
  - tim-projects 3mo ago
    I went through a period of home theatre building. What I learned from that, is that cinema sound is so badly calibrated and just downright awful in most cases. Its one of the things that led to me no longer going to the cinema. You can get a much better and immersive sound stage at home for not much money.
- sgt 3mo ago
  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.
  - gempir 3mo ago
    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-the-odyssey-on-35mm-70mm-imax-70mm-film-and-what-format-should-you-pick/ https://www.theppt.org/rewind/articles/where-can-you-watch-t...
    - sgt 3mo ago
      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.
      - gempir 3mo ago
        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.
        sgt 3mo ago
        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
  - rpdillon 3mo ago
    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 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?)
lemoncookiechip 3mo ago
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 hold much value since I just dislike the cinema experience in general. I like being able to control the environment I'm in when watching something (pausing, eating, loudness...) and whenever I go to cinemas I have to deal with people having their smartphones screens brighten up, people yapping and laughing at things that aren't funny, eating noises, etc...
- microtonal 3mo ago
  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.
- Tarq0n 3mo ago
nntwozz 3mo ago
I go to IMAX to see less smartphones show up during the movie. The rest is just icing on the cake.
- dudefeliciano 3mo ago
  i go to independent local cinemas, people are pretty respectful there too.
  - circularfoyers 3mo ago
    I've been to IMAX a lot of times and not a single time had a bad audience member. Whereas I've had at least one at each of the independent and arthouse ones I've been to sadly. I suspect in my case the tickets being significantly more expensive at IMAX keeps any disruptive people away.
yread 3mo ago
I've recently been to a planetarium which was pretty cool. It has in theory even better specs: 45 million pixels (8K has 33 million), ~500nits, 60Hz. It did seem to use PWM at very low brightness though https://planetariums-database.org/list_projectors.php?menu=list_projectors&brand=Evans_and_Sutherland&model=Digistar https://planetariums-database.org/list_projectors.php?menu=l...
fsh 3mo ago
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, the best technology is digital.
- nottorp 3mo ago
  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?
  - afiori 3mo ago
    I would guess that the film was still mastered/produced digitally
  - dbspin 3mo ago
    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.
    - nottorp 3mo ago
      Sad. A little more cheap colour correction and grading and we'll be back to b&w movies.
    - tshaddox 3mo ago
      Not every film. It was widely reported that Oppenheimer was color graded photochemically, and the 65mm film physically spliced (the editor of course worked in Avid with digital film scans). This means that 70 mm screenings were projecting a fully analog end-to-end pipeline. The exception, of course, is the visual effects shots, which went through a digital intermediary. The same seems to be true of The Odyssey, although the reporting is less clear as of now, and I suspect there are many more visual effects shots than Oppenheimer.
davidferguson 3mo ago
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-the-odyssey-on-35mm-70mm-imax-70mm-film-and-what-format-should-you-pick/ 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 to 18K equivalent The claim of 18K is entirely untested. No one has ever measured what the theoretical resolution of an 15/70mm IMAX system is. Kodak's film may me theoretically capable of resolving this, but what about the camera lens, the GT projector lens and field flattener, and everything else involved? Until a study is actually done, I don't think the 18K is a good number to band about. > thanks to the use of single or even dual 15kW water-cooled xenon bulbs No cinema is using dual lamps. The dual lamps are used for 3D - one lamp per "eye" (right and left). But no 15/70mm IMAX is currently showing 3D, I think the last was the London Science Museum (but that's a guess, so don't take as truth). So it is only single lamp. 15kW is also not always true - some smaller 15/70mm IMAXes use 12kW or around that. > However, there are only around 24 such theaters in the US, nine in Canada and six elsewhere around the world. This is incorrect. There are actually 25 in the US, and 7 in the rest of the world, totalling 41 prints.
- derbOac 3mo ago
  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. Now we're being told the opposite. Obviously if the full frame is being cut for different formats, you're losing some of the shot, so maybe this all reduces to what the director wants, and what is being lost relative to that in different formats. But then this brings me to my second source of confusion: > If you watch it in IMAX 70mm, you are seeing it in the full 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which will probably be the only way to experience this format. It would be unprecedented for this full picture to be released on Blu-ray or on streaming, so watching it in a cinema on IMAX 70mm is your chance to experience this. Why can't releases just be scaled to fit on a screen? You could take that IMAX70mm and scale it down to fit on a different aspect ratios. You'd end up with black bars on the sides of the screen, but then you'd see the same shot, just shrunk down. Everyone has a different TV size anyway so it's all relative. Clearly resolution plays a role, but IMAX70mm isn't going to be low resolution, and none of this will matter for home viewing anyway. All of these discussions ultimately seem odd to me. I understand the projection format constraints in movie theaters, but at some point it seems possible to just downscale everything to every aspect ratio format. They've done it here, so in theory they could just release all these versions as part of a physical disc set (or stream them all): https://www.odysseymovie.com/explore-formats/ https://www.odysseymovie.com/explore-formats/
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
ubermonkey 3mo ago
The thing is: It's kind of irrelevant for most theatergoers, as there are only 24 IMAX 70mm venues in the whole country. And many of them don't even show theatrical releases. For example, I used to live in Houston, and we tried to find a 70mm theater for OPPENHEIMER. There aren't any there despite being a city of nearly 8 million.
rayiner 3mo ago
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.
- PaulHoule 3mo ago
  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.
  - cindyllm 3mo ago
    [dead]
PUSH_AX 3mo ago
Reading this made me start to remember how my thinking changed around expensive/elaborate gear and art. When an artist performs a gig or releases an album, no one really remembers or connects with the fact that the audio went through some insane signal chain, no one at their gig would hear the difference between a $500 guitar and a $12,000 guitar. What resonates with people and what people will remember is the writing, the performance, the story, the energies... Everything else is the 0.1%, and yes it can stack but it's still on the peripherals. Everyone I respect in the arts has done the full bell curve, started out with crappy fundamentals -> gear will solve all my issues -> gear is marginally important but the fundamentals were always key. It's really interesting to me to see people I should expect to be on the other side of the bell curve still obsessing with marginal gains. My favourite movies, I couldn't even tell you what it was filmed on, and it probably could have been filmed on a range of comparible mediums and I would have never known.
rvschuilenburg 3mo ago
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".
- ant6n 3mo ago
  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.
- Bluestrike2 3mo ago
  Most of that discussion is less about any advantages inherent to either aspect ratio and more about just viewing the film as the director originally intended. The cinematographer would have composed shots for the main 1.43:1 aspect ratio first while taking into consideration the other aspect ratios (the viewfinder will overlay the different framelines to help make those decisions). The DP then gets to go back in during post and recompose each shot for the different formats as needed, tweaking what was originally shot to do their best to maintain a cohesive feel and emphasis across each crop. With five different formats for The Odyssey[0], I'm sure that was a fun experience. It's not that one format is inherently better. The frame is a storytelling tool, and you can use different aspect ratios to influence how audiences perceive the film.[1] It's when you start changing it afterwards with little regard for the director's original intentions that we see problems. The old pan-and-scan movie releases for VHS or cheap 16:9 conversions are frustrating examples. 0. https://www.odysseymovie.co.uk/explore-formats/ https://www.odysseymovie.co.uk/explore-formats/ 1. https://www.cined.com/aspect-ratio-as-a-storytelling-tool-a-how-to-with-film-examples/ https://www.cined.com/aspect-ratio-as-a-storytelling-tool-a-...
- wuliwong 3mo ago
  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.
danielthor 3mo ago
An IMAX 70mm drama is by necessity blurry because of the low depth of field you get with such a large image frame. IMAX is great for flyover films, but a movie filmed in it will look amateurish compared to a standard RED digital camera. That said, the Odyssey is a perfectly decent film. It would have looked better if captured with more appropriate technology, but it's an entertaining and uniquely American spin on the story.
- hcfman 3mo ago
  Isn't it just a film about a lot of fighting ?
- anfractuosity 3mo ago
  Isn't the depth of field primarily determined by the aperture of the lens and focal length.
Kon5ole 3mo ago
[dead]
mariusmg 3mo ago
>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 Hollywood movie on film today is because some directors like....film. There is no practicality/cost/reasoning to it.
- dbspin 3mo ago
  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.
  - jagged-chisel 3mo ago
    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.
    - dbspin 3mo ago
      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.
sgt 3mo ago
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.
- tuna74 3mo ago
  There are a lot of cinemas showing The Odyssey projected from actual 70 mm film. You can probably find one pretty close to you.
fortran77 3mo ago
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.
- 0x457 3mo ago
  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.
snowwrestler 3mo ago
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.
bob1029 3mo ago
I find the sound system to be more compelling than the projection system. The audio amplification in some IMAX venues are rated for more power consumption than their projector lamp. 15kW across 12 channels in some cases. You could never recreate this part of the experience at home. The power you could replicate but not the acoustics of a gigantic auditorium combined with that power. You can get 20hz floor shaking in small parts of your living room where the standing waves build up, but at imax it works smoothly across every seat.
- toast0 3mo ago
  Underseat subs should get you pretty close, if that's a priority. My home theater seats came with them, but you have to pay extra for the driver(s). Maybe eventually, the single big sub seems fine so far.
martinald 3mo ago
It's interesting to me when I go to the cinema how poor the quality is compared to at home on an OLED TV. The blacks are so grey and dark stuff is hard to make out.The resolution is far less noticeable than that (but obviously worse). Seems to me the real improvement in cinema would be OLED-style contrast ratio panels. Is this a thing being worked on?
crooked-v 3mo ago
Most "IMAX" branded theaters these days are just the biggest screen in the cineplex rebranded and with a more expensive (but still 4K) projector.
expedition32 3mo ago
Hollywood auteur clowns shooting om formats that no movie plex actually uses. I admire the grift.
Ccecil 3mo ago
Some locals I know built a few of these cameras. I just ran into one of them the other day. They started the local makerspace. There was an article last week in the local paper about it. https://cdapress.com/news/2026/jul/25/couples-imax-camera-filmed-the-odyssey/ https://cdapress.com/news/2026/jul/25/couples-imax-camera-fi... {view it in a private window}
radicaldreamer 3mo ago
For those in the Bay Area, AMC Metreon has the capabilities to show the best of all of these formats: 70mm film, dual laser GT, and also a Dolby Cinema theater in there as well.
gamblor956 3mo ago
In the LA area, both Regal and AMC have a number of IMAX 70mm theaters. Universal City AMC and Irvine Spectrum Regal both have the biggest IMAX screens. TCL in Hollywood has the next biggest. The downtown Regal and Burbank AMC are in the third tier (bit still very large). All of these theaters have IMAX 70mm film projectors.
- mixmastamyk 3mo ago
  Huh, I'd only seen IMAX at the California Science Center and it blew my mind at the time. But according to this article and site below, apparently haven't really seen IMAX: - https://cinemadb.net/auditorium/2513 https://cinemadb.net/auditorium/2513 - CSC, says it is only 4k! - https://cinemadb.net/auditorium/2511 https://cinemadb.net/auditorium/2511 - Hollywood Chinese - https://cinemadb.net/auditorium/2512 https://cinemadb.net/auditorium/2512 - Regal LA Live
7373737373 3mo ago
I wonder when there will exist camera and (laser) projection systems - and with that, movies - that cover even more of the human visible color gamut https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/10/imax-with-laser-superb-contrast-4k-resolution-and-huge-colour-gamuts/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/10/imax-with-laser-supe... mentions that with IMAX Laser: > Colour-wise, the full Rec. 2020 gamut/space is available—though we weren’t shown any films/trailers that actually made use of this larger colour space; they all used the DCI’s standard P3 colour space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020 I have no idea how well the analog film compares there https://moultano.wordpress.com/2026/06/19/where-to-find-the-colors-your-screen-cant-show-you/ https://moultano.wordpress.com/2026/06/19/where-to-find-the-...
- kridsdale1 3mo ago
  I suspect a lot of this is just established convention in production pipelines. You can get a Canon R5C and shoot log, and develop in Resolve for Rec2020 today. Hell, an iPhone pro probably can, and show it with the OLED.
lazyeye 3mo ago
Melbourne, Australia has the full 70mm IMAX screen. It's the only one in Australia.
supermatt 3mo ago
How does "shooting" on 70mm relate to the projection of the 70mm? I have absolutely no idea how any of this works, but are there no CGI effects in the movie or how does the CGI get on the film?
- mixmastamyk 3mo ago
  The article mentioned some optical/in-camera effects, and images can be scanned and printed on film as well.

90 points by ksec 3mo ago

Maybe related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49026846 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49026846

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.

throw0101a 3mo ago
I've seen non-IMAX 70mm referred to 5/70 because the image uses five perforations per frame; IMAX 70mm is then 15/70 because it uses fifteen perforations. Digital IMAX is much bigger: * https://old.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/pysn87/tremendously_helpful_imax_ratio_guide/ https://old.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/pysn87/tremendously_h... * https://old.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/1405mz0/standard_70mm_nonimax_vs_dual_laser_imax_on/ https://old.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/1405mz0/standard_70mm...
- mort96 3mo ago
  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?
  - throw0101a 3mo ago
    What is inaccurate about this size comparison? * https://old.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/1tw4jyy/psa_70mm_and_imax_70mm_are_not_the_same_thing/ https://old.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/1tw4jyy/psa_70mm_and_... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBEcjZN8io 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 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. Of course the largest complaint I tend to hear about Nolan films is the audio mixing, not the visuals.
    - ramesh31 3mo ago
      >"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 has clearly spoken.
      - dudefeliciano 3mo ago
        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
        AdamN 3mo ago
        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.
        rpdillon 3mo ago
        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.
        AdamN 3mo ago
        The eyepieces (and editing views) on that equipment shows the other aspect ratios so they know what will be in and out for the other 99%. Anyway plenty of art is only consumable by the 1%.
        scrlk 3mo ago
        1.43 IMAX isn't exclusive to 15/70mm, it can also be screened with IMAX's dual laser projection system.
      - deleted 3mo ago
  - jl6 3mo ago
    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 Penn & Teller: Bullshit! S03E12 ("The Best") on this subject. Good for the hobbyists, if it enhances their enjoyment, but if you're a casual, microscopic variations are going to be dwarfed by other factors.
    - mort96 3mo ago
      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.
ungreased0675 3mo ago
For me, sound is more impactful than screen resolution or aspect ratio. Subwoofer arrays powerful enough for the audience to feel sub-bass are expensive, large, and need to be placed precisely in the room. I don’t think I’ve ever been in a movie theater that had acoustics rivaling a top-tier music venue or concert hall.
- tim-projects 3mo ago
  I went through a period of home theatre building. What I learned from that, is that cinema sound is so badly calibrated and just downright awful in most cases. Its one of the things that led to me no longer going to the cinema. You can get a much better and immersive sound stage at home for not much money.
sgt 3mo ago
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.
- gempir 3mo ago
  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-the-odyssey-on-35mm-70mm-imax-70mm-film-and-what-format-should-you-pick/ https://www.theppt.org/rewind/articles/where-can-you-watch-t...
  - sgt 3mo ago
    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.
    - gempir 3mo ago
      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.
      - sgt 3mo ago
        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
- rpdillon 3mo ago
  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 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?)

lemoncookiechip 3mo ago

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 hold much value since I just dislike the cinema experience in general. I like being able to control the environment I'm in when watching something (pausing, eating, loudness...) and whenever I go to cinemas I have to deal with people having their smartphones screens brighten up, people yapping and laughing at things that aren't funny, eating noises, etc...

microtonal 3mo ago
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.
Tarq0n 3mo ago

nntwozz 3mo ago

I go to IMAX to see less smartphones show up during the movie. The rest is just icing on the cake.

dudefeliciano 3mo ago
i go to independent local cinemas, people are pretty respectful there too.
- circularfoyers 3mo ago
  I've been to IMAX a lot of times and not a single time had a bad audience member. Whereas I've had at least one at each of the independent and arthouse ones I've been to sadly. I suspect in my case the tickets being significantly more expensive at IMAX keeps any disruptive people away.

yread 3mo ago

I've recently been to a planetarium which was pretty cool. It has in theory even better specs: 45 million pixels (8K has 33 million), ~500nits, 60Hz. It did seem to use PWM at very low brightness though https://planetariums-database.org/list_projectors.php?menu=list_projectors&brand=Evans_and_Sutherland&model=Digistar https://planetariums-database.org/list_projectors.php?menu=l...

fsh 3mo ago

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, the best technology is digital.

nottorp 3mo ago
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?
- afiori 3mo ago
  I would guess that the film was still mastered/produced digitally
- dbspin 3mo ago
  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.
  - nottorp 3mo ago
    Sad. A little more cheap colour correction and grading and we'll be back to b&w movies.
  - tshaddox 3mo ago
    Not every film. It was widely reported that Oppenheimer was color graded photochemically, and the 65mm film physically spliced (the editor of course worked in Avid with digital film scans). This means that 70 mm screenings were projecting a fully analog end-to-end pipeline. The exception, of course, is the visual effects shots, which went through a digital intermediary. The same seems to be true of The Odyssey, although the reporting is less clear as of now, and I suspect there are many more visual effects shots than Oppenheimer.

davidferguson 3mo ago

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-the-odyssey-on-35mm-70mm-imax-70mm-film-and-what-format-should-you-pick/ 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 to 18K equivalent The claim of 18K is entirely untested. No one has ever measured what the theoretical resolution of an 15/70mm IMAX system is. Kodak's film may me theoretically capable of resolving this, but what about the camera lens, the GT projector lens and field flattener, and everything else involved? Until a study is actually done, I don't think the 18K is a good number to band about. > thanks to the use of single or even dual 15kW water-cooled xenon bulbs No cinema is using dual lamps. The dual lamps are used for 3D - one lamp per "eye" (right and left). But no 15/70mm IMAX is currently showing 3D, I think the last was the London Science Museum (but that's a guess, so don't take as truth). So it is only single lamp. 15kW is also not always true - some smaller 15/70mm IMAXes use 12kW or around that. > However, there are only around 24 such theaters in the US, nine in Canada and six elsewhere around the world. This is incorrect. There are actually 25 in the US, and 7 in the rest of the world, totalling 41 prints.

derbOac 3mo ago
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. Now we're being told the opposite. Obviously if the full frame is being cut for different formats, you're losing some of the shot, so maybe this all reduces to what the director wants, and what is being lost relative to that in different formats. But then this brings me to my second source of confusion: > If you watch it in IMAX 70mm, you are seeing it in the full 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which will probably be the only way to experience this format. It would be unprecedented for this full picture to be released on Blu-ray or on streaming, so watching it in a cinema on IMAX 70mm is your chance to experience this. Why can't releases just be scaled to fit on a screen? You could take that IMAX70mm and scale it down to fit on a different aspect ratios. You'd end up with black bars on the sides of the screen, but then you'd see the same shot, just shrunk down. Everyone has a different TV size anyway so it's all relative. Clearly resolution plays a role, but IMAX70mm isn't going to be low resolution, and none of this will matter for home viewing anyway. All of these discussions ultimately seem odd to me. I understand the projection format constraints in movie theaters, but at some point it seems possible to just downscale everything to every aspect ratio format. They've done it here, so in theory they could just release all these versions as part of a physical disc set (or stream them all): https://www.odysseymovie.com/explore-formats/ https://www.odysseymovie.com/explore-formats/

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

ubermonkey 3mo ago

The thing is: It's kind of irrelevant for most theatergoers, as there are only 24 IMAX 70mm venues in the whole country. And many of them don't even show theatrical releases. For example, I used to live in Houston, and we tried to find a 70mm theater for OPPENHEIMER. There aren't any there despite being a city of nearly 8 million.

rayiner 3mo ago

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.

PaulHoule 3mo ago
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.
- cindyllm 3mo ago
  [dead]

PUSH_AX 3mo ago

Reading this made me start to remember how my thinking changed around expensive/elaborate gear and art. When an artist performs a gig or releases an album, no one really remembers or connects with the fact that the audio went through some insane signal chain, no one at their gig would hear the difference between a $500 guitar and a $12,000 guitar. What resonates with people and what people will remember is the writing, the performance, the story, the energies... Everything else is the 0.1%, and yes it can stack but it's still on the peripherals. Everyone I respect in the arts has done the full bell curve, started out with crappy fundamentals -> gear will solve all my issues -> gear is marginally important but the fundamentals were always key. It's really interesting to me to see people I should expect to be on the other side of the bell curve still obsessing with marginal gains. My favourite movies, I couldn't even tell you what it was filmed on, and it probably could have been filmed on a range of comparible mediums and I would have never known.

rvschuilenburg 3mo ago

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".

ant6n 3mo ago
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.
Bluestrike2 3mo ago
Most of that discussion is less about any advantages inherent to either aspect ratio and more about just viewing the film as the director originally intended. The cinematographer would have composed shots for the main 1.43:1 aspect ratio first while taking into consideration the other aspect ratios (the viewfinder will overlay the different framelines to help make those decisions). The DP then gets to go back in during post and recompose each shot for the different formats as needed, tweaking what was originally shot to do their best to maintain a cohesive feel and emphasis across each crop. With five different formats for The Odyssey[0], I'm sure that was a fun experience. It's not that one format is inherently better. The frame is a storytelling tool, and you can use different aspect ratios to influence how audiences perceive the film.[1] It's when you start changing it afterwards with little regard for the director's original intentions that we see problems. The old pan-and-scan movie releases for VHS or cheap 16:9 conversions are frustrating examples. 0. https://www.odysseymovie.co.uk/explore-formats/ https://www.odysseymovie.co.uk/explore-formats/ 1. https://www.cined.com/aspect-ratio-as-a-storytelling-tool-a-how-to-with-film-examples/ https://www.cined.com/aspect-ratio-as-a-storytelling-tool-a-...
wuliwong 3mo ago
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.

danielthor 3mo ago

An IMAX 70mm drama is by necessity blurry because of the low depth of field you get with such a large image frame. IMAX is great for flyover films, but a movie filmed in it will look amateurish compared to a standard RED digital camera. That said, the Odyssey is a perfectly decent film. It would have looked better if captured with more appropriate technology, but it's an entertaining and uniquely American spin on the story.

hcfman 3mo ago
Isn't it just a film about a lot of fighting ?
anfractuosity 3mo ago
Isn't the depth of field primarily determined by the aperture of the lens and focal length.

Kon5ole 3mo ago

[dead]

mariusmg 3mo ago

>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 Hollywood movie on film today is because some directors like....film. There is no practicality/cost/reasoning to it.

dbspin 3mo ago
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.
- jagged-chisel 3mo ago
  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.
  - dbspin 3mo ago
    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.

sgt 3mo ago

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.

tuna74 3mo ago
There are a lot of cinemas showing The Odyssey projected from actual 70 mm film. You can probably find one pretty close to you.

fortran77 3mo ago

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.

0x457 3mo ago
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.

snowwrestler 3mo ago

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.

bob1029 3mo ago

I find the sound system to be more compelling than the projection system. The audio amplification in some IMAX venues are rated for more power consumption than their projector lamp. 15kW across 12 channels in some cases. You could never recreate this part of the experience at home. The power you could replicate but not the acoustics of a gigantic auditorium combined with that power. You can get 20hz floor shaking in small parts of your living room where the standing waves build up, but at imax it works smoothly across every seat.

toast0 3mo ago
Underseat subs should get you pretty close, if that's a priority. My home theater seats came with them, but you have to pay extra for the driver(s). Maybe eventually, the single big sub seems fine so far.

martinald 3mo ago

It's interesting to me when I go to the cinema how poor the quality is compared to at home on an OLED TV. The blacks are so grey and dark stuff is hard to make out.The resolution is far less noticeable than that (but obviously worse). Seems to me the real improvement in cinema would be OLED-style contrast ratio panels. Is this a thing being worked on?

crooked-v 3mo ago

Most "IMAX" branded theaters these days are just the biggest screen in the cineplex rebranded and with a more expensive (but still 4K) projector.

expedition32 3mo ago

Hollywood auteur clowns shooting om formats that no movie plex actually uses. I admire the grift.

Ccecil 3mo ago

Some locals I know built a few of these cameras. I just ran into one of them the other day. They started the local makerspace. There was an article last week in the local paper about it. https://cdapress.com/news/2026/jul/25/couples-imax-camera-filmed-the-odyssey/ https://cdapress.com/news/2026/jul/25/couples-imax-camera-fi... {view it in a private window}

radicaldreamer 3mo ago

For those in the Bay Area, AMC Metreon has the capabilities to show the best of all of these formats: 70mm film, dual laser GT, and also a Dolby Cinema theater in there as well.

gamblor956 3mo ago

In the LA area, both Regal and AMC have a number of IMAX 70mm theaters. Universal City AMC and Irvine Spectrum Regal both have the biggest IMAX screens. TCL in Hollywood has the next biggest. The downtown Regal and Burbank AMC are in the third tier (bit still very large). All of these theaters have IMAX 70mm film projectors.

mixmastamyk 3mo ago
Huh, I'd only seen IMAX at the California Science Center and it blew my mind at the time. But according to this article and site below, apparently haven't really seen IMAX: - https://cinemadb.net/auditorium/2513 https://cinemadb.net/auditorium/2513 - CSC, says it is only 4k! - https://cinemadb.net/auditorium/2511 https://cinemadb.net/auditorium/2511 - Hollywood Chinese - https://cinemadb.net/auditorium/2512 https://cinemadb.net/auditorium/2512 - Regal LA Live

7373737373 3mo ago

I wonder when there will exist camera and (laser) projection systems - and with that, movies - that cover even more of the human visible color gamut https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/10/imax-with-laser-superb-contrast-4k-resolution-and-huge-colour-gamuts/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/10/imax-with-laser-supe... mentions that with IMAX Laser: > Colour-wise, the full Rec. 2020 gamut/space is available—though we weren’t shown any films/trailers that actually made use of this larger colour space; they all used the DCI’s standard P3 colour space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020 I have no idea how well the analog film compares there https://moultano.wordpress.com/2026/06/19/where-to-find-the-colors-your-screen-cant-show-you/ https://moultano.wordpress.com/2026/06/19/where-to-find-the-...

kridsdale1 3mo ago
I suspect a lot of this is just established convention in production pipelines. You can get a Canon R5C and shoot log, and develop in Resolve for Rec2020 today. Hell, an iPhone pro probably can, and show it with the OLED.

lazyeye 3mo ago

Melbourne, Australia has the full 70mm IMAX screen. It's the only one in Australia.

supermatt 3mo ago

How does "shooting" on 70mm relate to the projection of the 70mm? I have absolutely no idea how any of this works, but are there no CGI effects in the movie or how does the CGI get on the film?

mixmastamyk 3mo ago
The article mentioned some optical/in-camera effects, and images can be scanned and printed on film as well.