Hari haran Absolutely the most useful comment for a long time!

This. Fuck this guy takes forever to get his point across

1.75x is better.

Thanks mate!

2x.

Will Melbourne I wish Nolan would've switched to 65mm for dialogue scenes years ago. The Interstellar 35mm scenes in 15/70 looked god awful. Partly because of the intense magnification, but mostly because of the DNR/sharpening process it went through for the IMAX releases. I don't remember the 35mm scenes in TDKR looking that terrible and that was all optically printed as far as I know.

Jai's Media It was shot on about 20% 5/70mm and 80% 15/70mm, they are two different types of film. To put it simply, 5/70mm is standard 70mm film and 15/70mm is IMAX 70mm film. IMAX film has much taller frames and is played horizontally opposed to vertically.

Will Melbourne thank you for the clarification. I'm guessing 15/70mm is 15 perf film?

Yeah.

Will Melbourne they use these no more mostly, not in shooting nor in cinémas... Interstellar been shoot inconnu Digital Imax 6K

+SebasGallegos They came with the Interstellar Blu Ray's for a bit.

PhysicalCopy I have an IMAX frame from the movie as well, but mines one of the scenes shot with the IMAX camera

I have one too

@@gbeatz4844 same

Andrew Barnum May I ask for the source of this information? Never heard of 18K to be honest.

TheGamerozi, the source is IMAX website, Dunkirk website, the general consensus across message boards and Christopher Nolan. Do a image search for 70mm IMAX and a picture promo pops up with those resolutions

also, film doesnt have any compression

Jackalope Animations, generally thats true. There is no compression on standard 70mm and IMAX 70mm however 35mm Scope (Cinemascope) and Ultra Panavision 70mm both use Analog compression by squeezing the image so a widescreen image can fit on a square frame. While this is not as bad as digital compression it does produce a slightly less sharp image. That is still better than overly compressed digital video which gets blocky and pixelated when compressed.

In terms of sharpness and visable lines of picture 35 mm isn't 6k. It hardly matches good digital 2k. 70 mm has more details but it isn't even close to 18k, maybe it could compare to 6k digital, 8k is way more detailed and sharp. And if the scene doesn't have perfect lighting it's even worse, and Dynamic Range is few steps lower too. Digital surpassed analog years ago, shooting on film is just a nostalgia not logic.

Well, ok... for what % ? 0.5 % ? 1 % ?

Well that would depend on what theater you're watching the movie in. If the film you're watching is a typical 2.35:1 or "cinescope" ratio, then aspect ratio will never change. If you're watching it on a 1.43:1 IMAX screen for a 70mm IMAX movie that has parts filmed in 35mm, then aspects will change. It doesn't matter if it's a digital or film projection. He mentions it in the video.

Look at it this way. 4:3 academy ratio (basically the same as old TV) is the smallest ratio. The common cinema aspect ratios of 1.85:1 (basically the same as 16:9) and 2.35:1 are the same height as 4:3 academy ratio, but wider. IMAX is the same width as 2.35:1, but TALLER. So even though it's 4:3, it's the largest ratio. You can see this perfectly when you see a Nolan movie in a true IMAX theater, the 35mm parts are in 2.35:1 and fill the whole width of the screen but only a third of its height, while the IMAX parts fill the entire screen.

The first one. Just bigger size

As physical copy pointed out, the larger the frame the better the clarity, the more light and color gets on the screen. Also some 70 mm runs through the projector at 36 frames a second rather than the standard 24 for 35 mm. The faster the rate of any medium the better the quality of sound and or picture. Both 35 mm and 70 mm are printed the same basically. Blowing up a 35 mm film The grain of the film enlargins and becomes visible, the larger you blow up the image the more fuzzy the image will become. Therefore if you have a substantially larger frame it's easier to blow up on a large screens without seeing the grain of the film

Tell me about the 70mm film format that plays back at 36 frames per second. Does it run vertically or horizontally? How many sprocket holes or perforations per frame (picture)? Is this an IMAX 70MM FILM format? It would be interesting to hear more about this. I heard there was a proposal from IMAX to have a 15/70mm FILM format that plays at 48 frames per second, but it ended up not getting marketed. This may be due to the extra high cost of the prints; 70mm IMAX film at nearly 11 feet of film per second. There might be a need for heavy duty film rollers with high speed bearings in them, and of course, a very careful projectionist that knows what they are doing. At this speed, it's extremely critical to thread the projector and film guidance rollers carefully.

Not even close yet. 6000x4000, versus about 16000x12000 (can't say exactly since it's analog) for IMAX. 192 megapixels, roughly.

😂

Exactly, he missed this option unfortunately. 70mm non-IMAX film has the same aspect ratio as the 35mm (I think 2.20:1), so it’s like the smallest drawn on paper, but it’s twice as large so it has more “resolution”. It runs vertically as well, so the long side is 70mm wide. 70mm IMAX has a huge difference, since it’s the short side to be 70mm tall, making the long side even bigger (since it runs horizontally)! Unfortunately there are very few theatres capable of projecting 70mm imax. Like 25 in US and Canada, but then only 1 in Europe, 3 in UK, and 1 in Australia. If you’re kinda close to one of these, don’t miss it!

XY ZW They used to.

+Bas Scharenborg Not automatically. Infact I read somewhere that imax is going to focus on 2d for now on. But usually if the movie is out in 3d the imax showing is also 3d.

Thanks :-)

Taking into consideration that IMAX is so far a film format only (digital IMAX is a lie), 3D IMAX requires twice the equipment as you're essentially projecting two separate movies at once, one for each eye. That's extremely expensive.

I know right 😂 Apparently it comes with BluRay DVD. So unlucky of him

you would need a 2 giga pixel image per frame to capture every detail of IMAX film. its 70mm and has the resolution of a single silver atom!!!!!!!!! Blu Ray cannot hold a candle to it. All they do is scan the film at a measly 4K with a flat bed scanner and then transcode it to a blu ray disk. 3840x2160 = just 8.2MP.

In terms of resolution, no. Not even close. IMAX film resolution is approximately 18K, and Blu-rays are 2K (really 1080p but it's essentially the same) and more recently 4K. In terms of aspect ratio, partially. When a movie is shot partially in IMAX and shown with a shifting aspect ratio in IMAX theaters, going fullscreen for the IMAX shots, the shifting aspect ratio is sometimes kept for the Blu-ray. There aren't many movies that do this, Most of Christopher Nolan's movies do (Dark Knight, Dark Knight Rises, Interstellar, Dunkirk) and the other ones I can think of are Tron: Legacy and Hunger Games: Catching Fire.

70mm imax is different than regular 70mm. Regular 70mm is twice the size of 35mm, imax 70mm is rotated 90 degrees, so 1 frame can contain 3 frames of regular 70mm rotated 90 degrees.

+Aviv Shmuelof According to this article it looks like imax has created 65mm digital camera. So it looks like infact they do.

thanks!

Avatar was on IMAX?😲

+wright96d Eh I don't think I'll ever be getting prints made. It's getting harder by the day to do so anyways. They aren't super important pictures anyway.

wright96d dude your one comment brought many old memories back. ☺

Those were not negatives

AL HD Cutting the negatives, splicing the film together and making prints directly of the negative

It depends on the size of the pixels that are used in the transfer to film. Small details in pixelation can produce much higher resolution on a film. A film has a minimum resolution of about 8K and a digit effect can be compressed down to have 8K resolution on the screen at a cinema.

+Sgt . Jojo Digital imax theaters are usually smaller than the 70mm theaters and like I mention in the video still don't show the whole frame. That's why people call it liemax. It's not a ripoff, infact like you said it's still a bigger screen, but it is a bit misleading when there is not any differentiation between the two.

Ohh, okay. I myself haven't been to a 70mm IMAX because it's 4 hours away from me and they just recently built Digital IMAX at my local AMC

Real IMAX is 15/70mm film, which is roughly 12K-18K resolution, projected in a purpose-built theater with a screen at least 72x53 feet and all rows of seating placed within one screen height. If you see anything that has the IMAX name but uses a digital projector, particularly anything in a converted multiplex auditorium with a screen that's only slightly larger than normal, it's not actually IMAX. It's LIEmax, which is nothing but a scam.

Because it costs the same amount as the the 70mm IMAX.

@@KingdaToro Aren't they now starting to have laser projectors instead of film for 70mm imax theaters? I remember I heard that somewhere

Those cameras aren't shooting in a resolution anywhere close to the 12K+ you'd get from an IMAX film camera, so they're not really IMAX cameras.

@@KingdaToro Yeah IMAX Digital is a joke

@@KingdaTorowait so is imax film by default 70 mm There isn’t 35 mm imax?

@@danzambrana Yes. It is only 70mm. And it uses that 70mm film in a very special way. Normal 70mm is basically scaled-up 35mm, it runs vertically and has frames five perforations tall. Its frames are 48.56 mm by 22.09 mm. By contrast, a 35mm film frame is 22 by 16 mm, four perforations tall. IMAX takes that same 70mm film and flips it on its side. It runs horizontally, with frames FIFTEEN perforations wide and no audio on the film in order to maximize the image area, which is 70 x 48.5 mm. It's slightly larger than three normal 70mm frames. The frames being that size means the film needs to be three times as long and run three times as fast as regular 70mm, and even faster than 35mm. A second's worth of 35mm film is 18 inches long, a second's worth of IMAX film is five and a half feet. The full IMAX print of Oppenheimer? Eleven miles! Now, there was a similar system for 35mm, where it was run horizontally with frames twice as wide as a usual frame is tall, but it's obsolete: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistaVision

ah yes I had just learned about Vista Vision and how efficient their 35 mm was. This realm of film is incredible, I must say it´s very complex but indeed so so interesting. I really appreciate the response. By the way, do you know the differences between the imax formats (excluding the 15/70mm of course)? I don´t know if really there is just one aside from the 70 mil which would be the digital. I keep reading about xenon and laser etc so I am confused. @@KingdaToro

You don't

Vistavision would look better in a upscale to IMAX.

+Chounoki I remember hearing that Christopher Nolan recuts the film without the computer for the imax print to minimize this.

For the non VFX shots in his IMAX shots, they did do (especially for Dunkirk, more vfx in interstellar haha) optical printdowns from the original master. i.e. no digital intervention other then figuring out the actual edit

Chounoki You would be right about most directors, but Christopher Nolan has never used a digital intermediate. His films are even color timed manually.

Ryan Landry all i said is that imax is in a much better quality compared to the orher two dipshit, you probably didnt understand

Ryan Landry it was also a question, answer it or fuck off

35mm equivalent of 2k-4k depending on how you see it. IMAX equivalent of 16k.

If you ran a film with this aspect ratio vertically instead of horizontally you'd have to have much wider films, which in turn brings cost up for every single tape instead of just the projector for having to roll the film faster

Mark Yes, that’s fake IMAX

They haven’t made digital cameras with enough width to capture 70mm ratio. I think the closest unit is 65mm digital imax cameras.

Hey young Fellow,The first IMAX film, in 15/70mm (not digital) was "Tiger Child", demonstrated at EXPO '70 (1970) in Osaka Japan. A bit of home work is good before posting. as an example The movie "Dunkirk" is a mix of formats. The Dark Night another and so it goes...

Chris Lee no ur wrong

+Chris Lee I believe imax 70mm is shot in 65mm then blown up to 70mm for projection in the theaters.

GODZILLA646 yup was thinking about 70mm anamorphic used in hateful right not 70mm IMAX, different aspect ratio same film size but anamorphic is much wider and even more rare.

PhysicalCopy nope 65mm is the film portion and 5mm is the sound.

They both use the same film. Normal 70mm runs the film vertically, with each frame being 5 perforations high. IMAX runs it horizontally, with each frame being 15 perforations wide. That gives IMAX three times the image area.

Snoop Cat Too expensive to upgrade... agreed tho

Snoop Cat No, the resolution would probably be no higher than 4k and since the screen would be so big, you would be able to see individual pixels.

IMax is equivalent to 18k.

Richard Smith No, IMax us not shot in pixels so there is no countable resolution.

Jens Hendriks That's why he said "equivalent to."

zrill owll No, I personally don't think so. Background music would be distracting

You should care because the combination of superb sound (IMAX theaters have excellent proprietary sound systems), and the giant, crystal clear image quality makes the movie more enjoyable and immersive

What do you mean "magnetic tape"

reezlaw the tape inside a video cassette

Both of the common theatrical ratios of 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 are meant to be the same height as 1.43:1 (academy ratio/old TV), but wider. IMAX is the same WIDTH as 2.35:1, the largest cinematic aspect ratio, but TALLER.

Gaming Epochs It does because the frame is wider than high. If you fit the frames _height_ to the films breadth the picture is obviously larger than if you were to fit the _width_ of the frame to the breadth of the film

Thanks

mind to give example from your side, mr. director?

نور رحيم steadier camera than 90% of these American B class vloggers. Still, I agree. He should be filming with a RED Weapon 8K and at least record in 27.3. I hate it when people bitch at smaller creators and treat them like there one of these spoiled KZfaq millionaire brats that could do better but actually don't care for shit. I bet he would have used a tripod if he had one at hand.

nahh..he just lazy....how can he get that 70mm IMAX film..looks like he does have more resource than u expected...i mean that 70mm IMAX film his hold i bet he would rather buy the tripod for the purpose if he does have brain..haha..jokes on you!

Can confirm. Just too lazy to use the tripod.

paulbakaus.com/tutorials/immersion/frame-rate-as-creative-choice/