They didn't shoot some of Interstellar in 35mm due to cost, they did it because it was impractical to shoot most of the dialogue scenes with the noisy IMAX cameras. Dunkirk was 100% 70mm and ~80% 15/70mm, yet had a much smaller budget compared to Interstellar.
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.
Yes, film is awesome... Especially IMAX. 35mm exceeds the resolution of most digital projection systems. 35mm produces and image equal to 6k, most digital theaters are 2k or 4k. IMAX 70mm film produces an image equal to 18k and blows away ALL other digital and film based projection systems. If you want the best its gotta be on film!
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
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.
Based on my research, 35mm is equivalent to a 6K digital production while 70mm is equivalent to 18K! So Imax movies shot and projected in 70mm are still superior to any digital production. Keep in mind that most movies today are shot with 2K digital cameras and almost all post-production work (editing) is done in 2k as well because of the amount of time it would take to render the special effects in 4K or higher (can take months!)
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.
That frame shot in 35mm is stretched and rotated to fit the imax 70mm film. It's actually a lot smaller. Regular 70mm film is twice wider than 35mm film. 70mm imax is rotated 90 degrees so it runs sideways and 1 frame can contain the same amount of space, or information as 3 frames of regular 70mm film. So 1 frame of imax 70mm film can contain roughly 6 frames of 35mm film. It's that much bigger. So that aspect ratio difference is only part of it.
Very few films since 1970 films has been shot on 70mm film so they use 35mm film used a lens that squeezed the the picture onto 35mm then in the cinema a lens unsqueezed it giving you the 2:35 aspect ratio it be interesting how many theatres can still use 70mm projectors
+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.
+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.
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.
What format did amusement parks use...like Six Flags Great America? I remember watching a show called SPEED or the history of speed. I remember the screen being huge (it looked like the screen area was bigger than the area used for seating).
Do you really think that Nolan who made interstellar on a budget of 180 Million Dollars would not shoot parts of the movie on IMAX because of budget. Seriously man educate yourself, shooting is very difficult on IMAX, that's the reason that Interstellar and Dunkirk are not shot completely on IMAX. I was here to learn from you.
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!
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.
Looking at the regular screen and the 70mm Imax, is this not turning the screen from a rectangular shape back to more of a square. So like 16:9 back to 4:3. I remember when 4:3 TVs where being changed to Wide screen 16:9, quite a few viewers thought the 4:3 screen was bigger and better for viewing as the 16:9 looked cropped on the height and you lost the full scope of the picture. Though you did have more width, so are we going back to more of the old days 4:3 but with digital quality sound and picture instead?
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.
Great video! Thank you! I have a question for you: Have you noticed that digital "projectionists" lately don't adjust the blinds on the screen to match the aspect ratio of the film? I keep seeing black bars at the movies, as if I were watching it at home. I keep forgetting to remind my local theaters to fix that. If I wanted to see black bars during a movie, I'd stay home. Thanks again!
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.
Do you know all those films are first digitalized with a fixed resolution (width x height) as dots, digitally post edited, then converted back to film? Really, there is basically no point comparing the size of the digitally post-edited films.
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.
+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.
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.
Does blu-ray capture the essence of 70mm IMAX film? I read that IMAX projectors output 70mm film at a resolution of approximately 8000 pixels compared to 2000 pixels in common theatres. How does the image quality of IMAX recordings differ between a standard blu-ray and/or 4K blu-ray disc playing on a 4K TV and watching the same movie in theatres?
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.
In order to have maximum resolution the image must be shot in imax and contact printed after the negative editing has been completed. Anytime digital is introduced there will be a reduction in resolution. Contact printed IMax prints are still the highest quality resolution. Original IMax prints were contact printed. Watch an Imax presentation on a full Imax screen for maximum resolution. The Imax digital experience is not the same as a full Imax screen.
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.
Highest quality you can currently see, perhaps. Seems kinda silly to say it’s the highest quality you will EVER see. Does that insinuate that the tech will never progress any further?
My favourite film i saw in IMAX was Avatar in 3d! It was the best quality and the best 3d ive seen plus it was a very large area on the screen! like 4:3 ratio in some parts!
Dunkirk could use more 70mm IMAX footage, likely because the lack of dialogue meant the loud ass IMAX cameras could be running for most scenes. BTW, Avengers: Infintiy War will be the first movie to be shot 100% on IMAX digital cameras. Should be interesting.
@@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
Why are the IMAX films ran sideways anyways? Why not have the same sized frame, but ran vertically? Going sideways the reel would have to travel the whole width of the frame to get to the next image, whereas if it ran vertically it only has to travel the height. Feels more efficient.
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
Why are some movies shown in IMAX theatres (eg. Jumanji: The Next Level, Joker, Ford v Ferrari etc), but there's no evidence that were even filmed in IMAX digital or film??? Is it "fake" IMAX?
Well it doesn't mean Imax has better ratio to watch a movie. Better quality? Yes, but sometimes director simply wants to audience see the movie in widescreen, and not to allow see everything. Some things can work better if the audience doesn't see everything. Does that mean, that..... When director wants to make a movie with ratio 2.35:1 and wants also use imax stuff, is he forced by IMAX Corporation to capture even things on screen he doesn't want to show the audience? Does picture captured on the film belong to the director (producer), or Imax co.? (because you know, only Imax cinema can project Imax film)
35mm professional film is 4 sprocket holes per frame. 70mm professional film is 5 sprocket holes per frame. IMAX film runs horizontally and is comprised of 3 regular 70mm frames, in other words 15 sprocket holes per frame. This comment comes to you from a veteran projectionist with 30 years experience running 35mm, 70mm, and IMAX. You're incorrect that IMAX is better sound. IMAX has a proprietary sound system that is only 5.1. Dolby Atmos is superior both in frequency response, and in number of channels available for your theater. The misconception that IMAX has better sound started in the 70's when Dolby surround sound was new and IMAX actually did have a better sound system back then. Unfortunately that is one area that IMAX Incorporated has failed to keep up and Dolby Labs surpassed them by light years
Imax 70 mm is only at museums it's almost gone I wish all Imax was laser since 70 mm is gone! I do go to the museum to watch Imax shorts films and real movies but real movies suck on a dolmtheater it's hard to watch a movie that way movies need a flat screen!
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
Dolby Cinema is still a better experience overall. While it might might be as big as imax, its pretty close in size. Dolby cinema has of course Dolby Atmos and hdr while also boasting a 1 million to 1 contrast ratio. So... imax is still good but Dolby Cinema takes 1st in my eyes.
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...
Mhmmm I thought IMAX was 65mm and 70mm was a different beast, pretty sure I'm right about this. Edit, I got mixed up with The Hateful Eight that was shot in 70mm anamorphic which is diff in aspect ratio it's a wider shot and pretty rare. But yea I guess IMAX is also 70mm it's 65mm plus 5 mm for sound.
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.
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.
Why would I want to watch a movie in 70mm IMAX? That's a 4:3 ratio. Thats the ratio of on an old boxy tv set from the 90's. My eyes and field of vision is side by side, hence why HD widescreen was invented 15 years ago. None of this stuff matters when you are watching a 4K or 8K movie on a 20ft (6m) screen using a home projector. The 70mm IMAX means you have to look up a little more to your ceiling, that's the only difference. Seriously, why care?
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
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.
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 TH-cam 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!
They didn't shoot some of Interstellar in 35mm due to cost, they did it because it was impractical to shoot most of the dialogue scenes with the noisy IMAX cameras. Dunkirk was 100% 70mm and ~80% 15/70mm, yet had a much smaller budget compared to Interstellar.
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
Increase speed to 1.25x. Thank me later.
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.
If I may ask, how exactly did you get a 70mm frame from Interstellar?
+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
Going to see Oppenheimer in 70mm! The sketch and reels helped a lot in understanding the difference, thank you!
Old school video graphics, just a pen and paper. I love it!
Yes, film is awesome... Especially IMAX. 35mm exceeds the resolution of most digital projection systems. 35mm produces and image equal to 6k, most digital theaters are 2k or 4k.
IMAX 70mm film produces an image equal to 18k and blows away ALL other digital and film based projection systems.
If you want the best its gotta be on film!
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.
Based on my research, 35mm is equivalent to a 6K digital production while 70mm is equivalent to 18K! So Imax movies shot and projected in 70mm are still superior to any digital production. Keep in mind that most movies today are shot with 2K digital cameras and almost all post-production work (editing) is done in 2k as well because of the amount of time it would take to render the special effects in 4K or higher (can take months!)
Thank you for getting this out there, sharing this personable, quick explanation! Exactly like how a great teacher would explain something!
I can confirm the louder part. Dunkirk was deafening at times, and given the film's setting that contributed greatly to the immersion factor.
You fully deserve all the views, helped me understand the difference between regular film stock and IMAX
"for the past 100 years we have been shooting 35"
ever heard of ultrapanavision70?
Well, ok... for what % ? 0.5 % ? 1 % ?
Very informative video mate! Yes, not the highest production quality, but the main info and content was very well presented. Thumbs up!
How about regular 70mm. what would be the difference between a showing and of traditional regular, and regular 70mm (non-imax).
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.
If the 35mm movie ran horizontally, It must be Vistavision.
Thank you for breaking down the film sizes and meaning.
That frame shot in 35mm is stretched and rotated to fit the imax 70mm film. It's actually a lot smaller. Regular 70mm film is twice wider than 35mm film. 70mm imax is rotated 90 degrees so it runs sideways and 1 frame can contain the same amount of space, or information as 3 frames of regular 70mm film. So 1 frame of imax 70mm film can contain roughly 6 frames of 35mm film. It's that much bigger. So that aspect ratio difference is only part of it.
Excellent to bring context by using the thumb size.
Very few films since 1970 films has been shot on 70mm film so they use 35mm film used a lens that squeezed the the picture onto 35mm then in the cinema a lens unsqueezed it giving you the 2:35 aspect ratio it be interesting how many theatres can still use 70mm projectors
Thank you, really well explained.
Finally I know the difference.
So good!
How much screen size is needed to see for 70mm IMAX print
AHHHHHHHHHHH STOP TOUCHING YOUR NEGATIVES
+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
Why do people call Digital IMAX "liemax?" Digital IMAX is way bigger compared to other theater screens in my area
+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
What format did amusement parks use...like Six Flags Great America? I remember watching a show called SPEED or the history of speed. I remember the screen being huge (it looked like the screen area was bigger than the area used for seating).
Where does my 24 Megapixels Dslr raw format stand in front of one single frame 70mm Imax negative?
Not even close yet. 6000x4000, versus about 16000x12000 (can't say exactly since it's analog) for IMAX. 192 megapixels, roughly.
😂
where you get the 70mm cell?
This was very helpful, thanks!
Do you really think that Nolan who made interstellar on a budget of 180 Million Dollars would not shoot parts of the movie on IMAX because of budget. Seriously man educate yourself, shooting is very difficult on IMAX, that's the reason that Interstellar and Dunkirk are not shot completely on IMAX. I was here to learn from you.
what is the différence between medium format and I-Max (in size)
So u somehow got a 70mm celluloid of Interstellar but of the scene which was shot in 35mm. Nice xD
I know right 😂 Apparently it comes with BluRay DVD. So unlucky of him
Question: What if the movie projector is a 70mm but the screen is not imax?
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!
35 mm is portrait 70 mm is wide screen (180)
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.
Looking at the regular screen and the 70mm Imax, is this not turning the screen from a rectangular shape back to more of a square. So like 16:9 back to 4:3. I remember when 4:3 TVs where being changed to Wide screen 16:9, quite a few viewers thought the 4:3 screen was bigger and better for viewing as the 16:9 looked cropped on the height and you lost the full scope of the picture. Though you did have more width, so are we going back to more of the old days 4:3 but with digital quality sound and picture instead?
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.
So very helpful thank you!
It is a original film or a replica
Very informative! Thank you
Great video! Thank you! I have a question for you: Have you noticed that digital "projectionists" lately don't adjust the blinds on the screen to match the aspect ratio of the film? I keep seeing black bars at the movies, as if I were watching it at home. I keep forgetting to remind my local theaters to fix that. If I wanted to see black bars during a movie, I'd stay home.
Thanks again!
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.
Do you know all those films are first digitalized with a fixed resolution (width x height) as dots, digitally post edited, then converted back to film?
Really, there is basically no point comparing the size of the digitally post-edited films.
+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.
What about the premium big screen formats that most of the multiplex chains offers... Like rpx etc.. what aspect ratios do they use..????
The first one. Just bigger size
Is IMAX automatically 3D, or if not, what's the difference between the two?
+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.
Very good video 😁
Does blu-ray capture the essence of 70mm IMAX film? I read that IMAX projectors output 70mm film at a resolution of approximately 8000 pixels compared to 2000 pixels in common theatres. How does the image quality of IMAX recordings differ between a standard blu-ray and/or 4K blu-ray disc playing on a 4K TV and watching the same movie in theatres?
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.
Dunkirk was shot on 65mm imax
Is that possible to have 70MM frames on a digital IMAX camera?
+Aviv Shmuelof According to this article it looks like imax has created 65mm digital camera. So it looks like infact they do.
thanks!
But how do they edit 70mm film without losing quality?
AL HD Cutting the negatives, splicing the film together and making prints directly of the negative
Where'd you get that interstellar film
XY ZW They used to.
In order to have maximum resolution the image must be shot in imax and contact printed after the negative editing has been completed. Anytime digital is introduced there will be a reduction in resolution. Contact printed IMax prints are still the highest quality resolution. Original IMax prints were contact printed. Watch an Imax presentation on a full Imax screen for maximum resolution. The Imax digital experience is not the same as a full Imax screen.
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.
Highest quality you can currently see, perhaps. Seems kinda silly to say it’s the highest quality you will EVER see. Does that insinuate that the tech will never progress any further?
I'm wondering how do you turn digital into film to put on a projector in a theater
You don't
With imax they first took 70mm film ran it sideways then getting the bigger format
My favourite film i saw in IMAX was Avatar in 3d! It was the best quality and the best 3d ive seen plus it was a very large area on the screen! like 4:3 ratio in some parts!
Avatar was on IMAX?😲
I was seen Dunkirk in Digital Imax and it was :O
Having a film shot in imax great.
Having a regular 35mm film upscale to imax. Not soo good.
Vistavision would look better in a upscale to IMAX.
Nice to see but what you Do with your bands lol we been told that they mostly use all digital Cams, projectors bécane digital even before
Good job thanks
So why are you shooting this on a Prison Cot?
From your explanation of seems that IMAX 70mm is in 16:9 whilst 35mm is 21:9
Doesn't seem quite right to me, 21:9 is a far superior aspect ration
I don't get it.... Why can't 70mm shot in digital and only in film?.... What's film stock offeres compared to digital?
They haven’t made digital cameras with enough width to capture 70mm ratio. I think the closest unit is 65mm digital imax cameras.
You sound like Mark Rober.
Dunkirk could use more 70mm IMAX footage, likely because the lack of dialogue meant the loud ass IMAX cameras could be running for most scenes.
BTW, Avengers: Infintiy War will be the first movie to be shot 100% on IMAX digital cameras. Should be interesting.
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
In a nutshell digital and 35mm are like 1920x1080 and imax is the equivalent to 4k compared to digital and 35mm?
I know imax isnt 4k etc
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.
Why are the IMAX films ran sideways anyways? Why not have the same sized frame, but ran vertically? Going sideways the reel would have to travel the whole width of the frame to get to the next image, whereas if it ran vertically it only has to travel the height. Feels more efficient.
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
Why are some movies shown in IMAX theatres (eg. Jumanji: The Next Level, Joker, Ford v Ferrari etc), but there's no evidence that were even filmed in IMAX digital or film??? Is it "fake" IMAX?
Mark Yes, that’s fake IMAX
nice
Well it doesn't mean Imax has better ratio to watch a movie. Better quality? Yes, but sometimes director simply wants to audience see the movie in widescreen, and not to allow see everything. Some things can work better if the audience doesn't see everything. Does that mean, that..... When director wants to make a movie with ratio 2.35:1 and wants also use imax stuff, is he forced by IMAX Corporation to capture even things on screen he doesn't want to show the audience? Does picture captured on the film belong to the director (producer), or Imax co.? (because you know, only Imax cinema can project Imax film)
Playback Speed 2.0x recommended
watching this for oppenheimer weeoo
35mm professional film is 4 sprocket holes per frame. 70mm professional film is 5 sprocket holes per frame. IMAX film runs horizontally and is comprised of 3 regular 70mm frames, in other words 15 sprocket holes per frame. This comment comes to you from a veteran projectionist with 30 years experience running 35mm, 70mm, and IMAX. You're incorrect that IMAX is better sound. IMAX has a proprietary sound system that is only 5.1. Dolby Atmos is superior both in frequency response, and in number of channels available for your theater. The misconception that IMAX has better sound started in the 70's when Dolby surround sound was new and IMAX actually did have a better sound system back then. Unfortunately that is one area that IMAX Incorporated has failed to keep up and Dolby Labs surpassed them by light years
Thank you brooooooooooo alot
Imax 70 mm is only at museums it's almost gone I wish all Imax was laser since 70 mm is gone! I do go to the museum to watch Imax shorts films and real movies but real movies suck on a dolmtheater it's hard to watch a movie that way movies need a flat screen!
to capture all the detail in 35mm film you would need an 87 M Pixel digital camera. to capture IMAX you would need approx 2 Gigapixel.
2:32 Area = length X breadth. It doesn't matter whether it goes horizontally(left to right) or vertically(top to bottom).
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
Dolby Cinema is still a better experience overall. While it might might be as big as imax, its pretty close in size. Dolby cinema has of course Dolby Atmos and hdr while also boasting a 1 million to 1 contrast ratio. So... imax is still good but Dolby Cinema takes 1st in my eyes.
why don't you talk about noise?
Avengers Infinity War is the first ever film to be filmed completely in IMAX
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...
u need a backround music tho..
zrill owll No, I personally don't think so. Background music would be distracting
Why don't they just have a big ass oled screen to show the movie on... quality would be way better
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."
Just count the size of the frame in perforations rather then thumbs size. Super 35 is about at 4 perforations high.
Increase to 1.5 x and u will hail me
Mhmmm I thought IMAX was 65mm and 70mm was a different beast, pretty sure I'm right about this.
Edit, I got mixed up with The Hateful Eight that was shot in 70mm anamorphic which is diff in aspect ratio it's a wider shot and pretty rare. But yea I guess IMAX is also 70mm it's 65mm plus 5 mm for sound.
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.
Get a tripod dude! And don’t touch the IMAX film with your greasy thumb!
Why are you touching the negatives?? The film has fingerprints now! Quick, wipe them off!
Why would I want to watch a movie in 70mm IMAX? That's a 4:3 ratio. Thats the ratio of on an old boxy tv set from the 90's. My eyes and field of vision is side by side, hence why HD widescreen was invented 15 years ago. None of this stuff matters when you are watching a 4K or 8K movie on a 20ft (6m) screen using a home projector. The 70mm IMAX means you have to look up a little more to your ceiling, that's the only difference. Seriously, why care?
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.
Dunkirk sucked. I saw it in Imax 70 and it still sucked.
use a desk, not your mom's bed. take the camera off autofocus. stop waving your hands infront of the camera!
mind to give example from your side, mr. director?
what the heck hold the camera forever...cheap video explanation...just buy holder already...
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 TH-cam 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.
forget Imax. Bring back 48fps! Im sick of seeing movies with choppy movement!
paulbakaus.com/tutorials/immersion/frame-rate-as-creative-choice/