i saw Oppenheimer on 70mm in Atlanta after i had already seen it in the Pooler GA worlds tallest Imax which is a digital laser projector, and it was the most beautiful clear image i have ever seen, no digital tv or projector comes anywhere close to the image of large format Imax film. from my understanding the digital equivalent of 70mm Imax is estimated to be around 18k or more. some of have even estimated 40k to 60k, to put that in perspective most movies are projected at 2k and in more modern theaters 4k to 5k, that difference is insane and it shows. even with modern tech it will probably be a decade or more before a practical digital camera and projector setup that is mass market ready can do that
Nolan truly is the pioneer of IMAX for commercial blockbuster films. After the success of The Dark Knight many other directors started to use IMAX for their movies
_The Lord of the Rings_ trilogy had versions remastered/upscaled for IMAX. But they were not shot on IMAX. _The Dark Knight_ was the first fictional feature length live action film that was shot with IMAX cameras and IMAX film.
Oh yeah, that's how sound was done back then, printed onto negative just like filmic pictures, when it's projected on film projectors in theaters, there's a seperate reader that "projects" the sound
@robertjacques4117 Yeah, the funny thing is I just finished rewatch Inglorious Basterds and there's scene that they were making film with 35mm and asked someone to put a soundtrack on it lol.
Yep! It works VERY similar to how a barcode is scanned in your groceries. The only difference is the fact everything is done by LIGHT and analog components. We truly had it all before the digital transition.
Bit of trivia: The Star Wars/Empire films shown were most likely from trailers and not release prints because they were spherical and not anamorphic to be shown before spherical movies. Possibly for the 1997 re-releases since they have digital soundtracks along the edge.
I love how IMAX frames are so large, they decided to build the filmstock to be run sideways rather than vertically to reduce its width. You can see from the way the perforations are across the top and bottom of the frame rather than down the sides.
@@mattparkin7224 even 65mm film, as a perforated movie stock, preceded IMAX It's just used in the other orientation, with frame height counted in perforations just like with 35mm film
I could be wrong, but it looked like that 35mm film had both the analog (Dolby SR?) waveforms, which you mentioned, and the Dolby Digital equivalent (between the sprocket holes on the same side).
Those Star Wars prints are most definitely from the 97 special edition. You can tell because on the left there's this barcode looking thing which from what I've heard was used for the 5.1 mixes.
There's even more types, there's 70 mm film from the 50s and 60s that is much wider then IMAX but not as tall, it was used for film epics in the Golden Era of Hollywood
On the 35mm you can indeed see the audio waves on the left, but also 2D barcodes inbetween the holes (iirc that's the Dolby Digital audio. It looks like QR codes), and the whole blue line on the far left is also a uninterrupted 2D barcode (that one for SONY I think).
On the 35mm strip (which looks to be a Star Wars 1997 Special Edition trailer) you can see four different audio formats. 1. Analog Stereo - the waveform next to the picture, read optically. More light = more voltage = more sound. 2. Dolby Digital - those itty-bitty QR-code lookin' things between the perforations. They even have Dolby logos in the center! 3. SDDS - Sony's competitor to Dolby, in blue on the outsides of the strip. 4. DTS - ok, the audio itself isn't there, that's on a CD-ROM that comes with the film, but the timecode that keeps the film and CD in sync is there, those little dots and dashes right next to the picture.
I really don't get how those audio waves are read and turned into detailed sound??? I mean I get the picture part. But how can you get so much sound detail from what I see are just varying waves of the same color??
This is going to be a bit of a read, but bear with me. :) It's a "bilateral variable area" soundtrack. The transparent parts vary in width (thus variable area) to represent the audio waveform, mirrored symmetrically (bilateral). It's not entirely unlike a graphical representation of sound you see in a sound editing software. By shining light through a thin slit and then through the soundtrack onto a photocell as the film moves, the variations can be converted to an electrical signal. There have also been unilateral variable area soundtracks where only one edge varies, as well as variable density soundtracks which have a fixed width and the transparency itself varies. The movie industry settled on using two tracks side by side to reduce the impact of scratches and dirt on the sound, even though it was initially used for mono. This was called a "dual bilateral variable area" soundtrack. When widescreen formats arrived in the 1950s to compete with TV, they used far more expensive to make magnetic soundtracks for multichannel sound, while optical sound remained mono. In the 1970s, Eastman Kodak and RCA joined forces with Dolby to start making use of the two tracks as left and right stereo (stereo variable area or SVA), upmixed on playback to extract a center channel. Soon after, Dolby added a matrix encoded surround channel to the system which too could be recovered on playback through upmixing. A final bit of trivia is that the aforementioned photocell in the soundhead on the projector was sensitive to infrared light, which the lamp would produce to some extent. In black-and-white film, the silver halide would block that in the dark areas of the soundtrack. With color film however, the silver halide was washed away as part of the development process. To make the dark areas in the soundtrack block infrared light again so the soundtrack could be reproduced properly, it had to be smeared with silver paste and redeveloped to bind back silver halide. As high intensity red LEDs and lasers became available for use in optical soundheads, redevelopment of the soundtrack was no longer needed. This meant that starting in the late 1990s, optical soundtracks went from a very deep, near black magenta color to "high magenta" with less silver used, to cyan dye only tracks in the early 2000s. Because the latter passed infrared light, it required a red LED or laser reader for playback instead of an incandescent lamp, or the sound would become very faint and distorted.
Nolan may be particularly or even fully responsible for rejuvenating people's interest in IMAX as a film medium. I will be forever be thankful that I was able to see Dune part 2 in IMAX solely for the fact that I got to literally got to see two thirds more of that beautifully shot movie.
You can just get yourself a medium film camera for next to nothing and put some 120 film in it. It's the same size as IMAX )minus the sprocket holes). Of course you can't shot a movie, but you can make your own photos.
Because film is still being used and it teaches you the fundamental ways of working on a proper set. You don't have focus peaking. So you have to measure out the distance in order to know whether you are in focus. You don't have a monitor, so you have to light everything by eye and a light meter. You don't have an infinite amount of drives to film on. So you have to calculate how much takes you can do which teaches you about producing and how much time it takes to do a scene. The camera might be loud, so you have to learn how to do ADR on location and in post production. Film isn't that much more difficult to shoot with. Especially with newer film cameras. But if you fall with film, it's usually way faster and harder. It keeps students on their toes in a good way.
Yeah that's true, even though it can't be 100% calculated on a resolution basis, you can't really count pixels on film since it's different then digital but that is essentially and accurate comparison and representation of film to digital resolution I do love digital but film has so much beauty and character that digital I don't think can ever replicate, it will always be my favorite but still, digitalhas its own beauty, especially in the realm of color science
In reality, the numbers are less exciting. s16mm resolves more to a resolution around 2k and s35mm limits out pretty consistent before 4k even on modern stock. Anything higher will just create a sharper image, not a more detailed one. I haven't worked with 65mm film so I don't know where that ends up. It might well be 18k especially with 15 perf IMAX.
If I'm not wrong, 18K is IMAX 70mm, not standard 70mm (that could be around 12K). Although I've been told that a 18K scan, while virtually possible, isn't what you would actually get from a scan. It'd likely be something around 14-16K.
it should look better than standard 2.35:1 films, because 1.33:1 AR has a taller image, you get more info up and down (thus being closer to 1.43:1 of IMAX).
Star wars the force unleashed the other two and the giant of its own and I was just a bit worried about the other way around and the other one in a couple in my head to work on Monday and Thursday as I am going going going going to help you with the other one in a couple in my head to work on Monday and Thursday as I am going to the office to help you with the other one in 20th century fox and I love it much more than I have to go to bed and have to wait for the rest of the work
Imax has its own technique for blowing up 35mm films to their screens. But what you're asking may not be that good, once you go beyond a film's original resolution there's no detail to enhance. This is also the reason recent 4K remasters like Aliens or True Lies suck: instead of going back to the original negative and make a proper 4K scan - where you can actually gain more information and details - they just enhanced the old 1080p transfers with "AI upscaling", and the result is quite mediocre, because there was no further detail to get from those sources.
In the case of IMAX, it is better, period. 35mm has roughly the same resolution as 4K, IMAX is roughly 12K-18K. Digital doesn't even come close to that yet.
Watching imax on its actual film is breathe taking
u so lucky :(
I watched Dune 2 in Imax 70mm theater, it was beyond spectacle
Excited for Interstellar
i saw Oppenheimer on 70mm in Atlanta after i had already seen it in the Pooler GA worlds tallest Imax which is a digital laser projector, and it was the most beautiful clear image i have ever seen, no digital tv or projector comes anywhere close to the image of large format Imax film. from my understanding the digital equivalent of 70mm Imax is estimated to be around 18k or more. some of have even estimated 40k to 60k, to put that in perspective most movies are projected at 2k and in more modern theaters 4k to 5k, that difference is insane and it shows. even with modern tech it will probably be a decade or more before a practical digital camera and projector setup that is mass market ready can do that
@@patrickwalton8110worlds biggest imax is located in Germany as far as i know
Nolan truly is the pioneer of IMAX for commercial blockbuster films. After the success of The Dark Knight many other directors started to use IMAX for their movies
Didn't LOTR also use imax?
_The Lord of the Rings_ trilogy had versions remastered/upscaled for IMAX. But they were not shot on IMAX.
_The Dark Knight_ was the first fictional feature length live action film that was shot with IMAX cameras and IMAX film.
He’s also known to be breaking most of the cameras for his intense scenes
I didn't know that audio can be printed on film!
Oh yeah, that's how sound was done back then, printed onto negative just like filmic pictures, when it's projected on film projectors in theaters, there's a seperate reader that "projects" the sound
@robertjacques4117 Yeah, the funny thing is I just finished rewatch Inglorious Basterds and there's scene that they were making film with 35mm and asked someone to put a soundtrack on it lol.
Yep! It works VERY similar to how a barcode is scanned in your groceries. The only difference is the fact everything is done by LIGHT and analog components. We truly had it all before the digital transition.
Me neither
70mm film (imax) is actually 65mm of visuals and 5mm of sound!
This is by far the coolest thing i've seen all day
Bit of trivia: The Star Wars/Empire films shown were most likely from trailers and not release prints because they were spherical and not anamorphic to be shown before spherical movies. Possibly for the 1997 re-releases since they have digital soundtracks along the edge.
shorts really give me some cool trivia once in a while
I always wondered how they did the sound on film, cool
I love how IMAX frames are so large, they decided to build the filmstock to be run sideways rather than vertically to reduce its width. You can see from the way the perforations are across the top and bottom of the frame rather than down the sides.
Feels like the film stock preceded IMAX as a format - it's like 6x7 vs 645 on 120 still film
@@mattparkin7224 even 65mm film, as a perforated movie stock, preceded IMAX
It's just used in the other orientation, with frame height counted in perforations just like with 35mm film
This is freaking awesome. My local theater will be playing Joker 2 on IMAX 70MM and im so ready for the preorder tickets. Cant wait!!
that wasn't shot on Imax tho
Can’t wait for BMD’s new 17k Ursa with a massive IMAX-like sensor
I could be wrong, but it looked like that 35mm film had both the analog (Dolby SR?) waveforms, which you mentioned, and the Dolby Digital equivalent (between the sprocket holes on the same side).
Indeed, all Dolby Digital soundtracks exclusively used Dolby SR on the SVA track.
Geesh louise, I never knew IMAX film rolls were THAT big.
Interstellar Oppenheimer God level from CHRISTOPHER NOLAN
Those Star Wars prints are most definitely from the 97 special edition. You can tell because on the left there's this barcode looking thing which from what I've heard was used for the 5.1 mixes.
How doesn’t this have more views!
I never realized how film could be so different
There's even more types, there's 70 mm film from the 50s and 60s that is much wider then IMAX but not as tall, it was used for film epics in the Golden Era of Hollywood
Love seeing these types of videos. 😊
VistaVision turns 35mm on its side like IMAX 70mm and it produces a stunning picture.
On the 35mm you can indeed see the audio waves on the left, but also 2D barcodes inbetween the holes (iirc that's the Dolby Digital audio. It looks like QR codes), and the whole blue line on the far left is also a uninterrupted 2D barcode (that one for SONY I think).
Thanks for detail 🎉
No one's gonna talk about the background music? 😆
On the 35mm strip (which looks to be a Star Wars 1997 Special Edition trailer) you can see four different audio formats.
1. Analog Stereo - the waveform next to the picture, read optically. More light = more voltage = more sound.
2. Dolby Digital - those itty-bitty QR-code lookin' things between the perforations. They even have Dolby logos in the center!
3. SDDS - Sony's competitor to Dolby, in blue on the outsides of the strip.
4. DTS - ok, the audio itself isn't there, that's on a CD-ROM that comes with the film, but the timecode that keeps the film and CD in sync is there, those little dots and dashes right next to the picture.
Great video!!
Just saw interstellar in imax, incredible
I really don't get how those audio waves are read and turned into detailed sound??? I mean I get the picture part. But how can you get so much sound detail from what I see are just varying waves of the same color??
Wild, huh? It's a bit like vinyl records getting great sound out of grooves and a needle.
This is going to be a bit of a read, but bear with me. :)
It's a "bilateral variable area" soundtrack. The transparent parts vary in width (thus variable area) to represent the audio waveform, mirrored symmetrically (bilateral). It's not entirely unlike a graphical representation of sound you see in a sound editing software.
By shining light through a thin slit and then through the soundtrack onto a photocell as the film moves, the variations can be converted to an electrical signal.
There have also been unilateral variable area soundtracks where only one edge varies, as well as variable density soundtracks which have a fixed width and the transparency itself varies.
The movie industry settled on using two tracks side by side to reduce the impact of scratches and dirt on the sound, even though it was initially used for mono. This was called a "dual bilateral variable area" soundtrack. When widescreen formats arrived in the 1950s to compete with TV, they used far more expensive to make magnetic soundtracks for multichannel sound, while optical sound remained mono.
In the 1970s, Eastman Kodak and RCA joined forces with Dolby to start making use of the two tracks as left and right stereo (stereo variable area or SVA), upmixed on playback to extract a center channel. Soon after, Dolby added a matrix encoded surround channel to the system which too could be recovered on playback through upmixing.
A final bit of trivia is that the aforementioned photocell in the soundhead on the projector was sensitive to infrared light, which the lamp would produce to some extent. In black-and-white film, the silver halide would block that in the dark areas of the soundtrack. With color film however, the silver halide was washed away as part of the development process. To make the dark areas in the soundtrack block infrared light again so the soundtrack could be reproduced properly, it had to be smeared with silver paste and redeveloped to bind back silver halide.
As high intensity red LEDs and lasers became available for use in optical soundheads, redevelopment of the soundtrack was no longer needed. This meant that starting in the late 1990s, optical soundtracks went from a very deep, near black magenta color to "high magenta" with less silver used, to cyan dye only tracks in the early 2000s. Because the latter passed infrared light, it required a red LED or laser reader for playback instead of an incandescent lamp, or the sound would become very faint and distorted.
I find it hilarious that my school years only included digital by my senior year 😅
Love bids like this. Top stuff
Nolan may be particularly or even fully responsible for rejuvenating people's interest in IMAX as a film medium.
I will be forever be thankful that I was able to see Dune part 2 in IMAX solely for the fact that I got to literally got to see two thirds more of that beautifully shot movie.
I loved this video
Please tell me which Film school were you in?
2020 ahh bg music
Thank you for the info! Very interesting
Danish TV2 news show yesterday a cinema was allowed to get a copy of Oppenheimer in 70mm to show at the premiere.
Why does the 35mm and 70 mm film has audio waves, where do we get the audio for these reel projector
That's not a film - THIS IS THE FILM
You should also mention that there’s different sizes to 70mm film that’s based off the sprocket number
Why is audio wave on the side of the films? Can anyone explain.
Awesome!
Where did you buy this, I need this.
It came in the pre-ordered steelbook copy of the Interstellar bluray disk!
You can just get yourself a medium film camera for next to nothing and put some 120 film in it. It's the same size as IMAX )minus the sprocket holes).
Of course you can't shot a movie, but you can make your own photos.
Why imax crop from 4:3 to 21:9
Im here because im curious about zack snyder rebel moon 70mm btw noice video
Rebel Moon was filmed with digital cameras, I think.
Cool.
😮❤
🔥
I want one
Great VIDEO. Wish it was shot horizontally. The vertical format is lame. With all due respect.
Wow
when will we get imax for still photography?
Why is 16mm film still being taught in school when now everything is going digital
Too keep the tradition alive. Why do people still learn math if there’s ai?
@@Christian_Dy u owned him 😂
Or calculators
because film is very much still alive as a medium
Because film is still being used and it teaches you the fundamental ways of working on a proper set.
You don't have focus peaking. So you have to measure out the distance in order to know whether you are in focus.
You don't have a monitor, so you have to light everything by eye and a light meter.
You don't have an infinite amount of drives to film on. So you have to calculate how much takes you can do which teaches you about producing and how much time it takes to do a scene.
The camera might be loud, so you have to learn how to do ADR on location and in post production.
Film isn't that much more difficult to shoot with. Especially with newer film cameras. But if you fall with film, it's usually way faster and harder. It keeps students on their toes in a good way.
Jesus H Christ that's a massive reel of film. Holy mother Mary.
Why are there fake black bars on that film?? Isnt there supposed to be a anamorphic projector lens that’s supposed to expand the squeezed footage
Why is nobody talking about Baraka on 70mm?
why no vista or 70mm?
maybe samples of that are a little more difficult to get
Black bars though. Don't tell me IMAX movies are more expensive because they waste more film.
Here's it in a digital perspective.
16mm (4k but not amazing quality from rips I've seen)
35mm (8k and beautiful)
70mm (18k and amazing)
And on a side note, super 8 (2k at the maximum, but not that noticeable a difference from 1080p).
Yeah that's true, even though it can't be 100% calculated on a resolution basis, you can't really count pixels on film since it's different then digital but that is essentially and accurate comparison and representation of film to digital resolution
I do love digital but film has so much beauty and character that digital I don't think can ever replicate, it will always be my favorite but still, digitalhas its own beauty, especially in the realm of color science
In reality, the numbers are less exciting.
s16mm resolves more to a resolution around 2k and s35mm limits out pretty consistent before 4k even on modern stock.
Anything higher will just create a sharper image, not a more detailed one.
I haven't worked with 65mm film so I don't know where that ends up. It might well be 18k especially with 15 perf IMAX.
If I'm not wrong, 18K is IMAX 70mm, not standard 70mm (that could be around 12K).
Although I've been told that a 18K scan, while virtually possible, isn't what you would actually get from a scan. It'd likely be something around 14-16K.
@@annekedebruyn7797 less than 4K for 35mm?
Why there’s color in the film? I thought color in film will only shown this way if it’s a positive film?
because it is positive film?
Wait so how is this edited?
Wouldn't 4:3 look great on that Imax frame?
it should look better than standard 2.35:1 films, because 1.33:1 AR has a taller image, you get more info up and down (thus being closer to 1.43:1 of IMAX).
I max me!!
You look like the person who sold me fent behind walmart last year.
Thats no film roll, its a 35mm monster...
If I wasn’t distracted by trophy hunting, I would’ve been all over this shit.
Normalize Imax
Star wars the force unleashed the other two and the giant of its own and I was just a bit worried about the other way around and the other one in a couple in my head to work on Monday and Thursday as I am going going going going to help you with the other one in a couple in my head to work on Monday and Thursday as I am going to the office to help you with the other one in 20th century fox and I love it much more than I have to go to bed and have to wait for the rest of the work
Fix your Thumbnail
40% of the film is black bars
Imagine AI technology enhancing the early Star Wars film to IMAX film
Imax has its own technique for blowing up 35mm films to their screens.
But what you're asking may not be that good, once you go beyond a film's original resolution there's no detail to enhance.
This is also the reason recent 4K remasters like Aliens or True Lies suck: instead of going back to the original negative and make a proper 4K scan - where you can actually gain more information and details - they just enhanced the old 1080p transfers with "AI upscaling", and the result is quite mediocre, because there was no further detail to get from those sources.
no. it's just... no.
but almost no one uses film
please stop yapping
digital cameras are more common in mainstream productions now, but some of the best filmmakers still prefer film (Nolan, Tarantino, PT Anderson..)
Why are people still using film? Just because they wanna be cool and they placebo perceive a filmy vibe from it?
It looks so much better than digital
@durrclips746 No, it doesn't.
god youre insufferable, not everything is about saving costs
@@dw4270 yes it does, noice try though
In the case of IMAX, it is better, period. 35mm has roughly the same resolution as 4K, IMAX is roughly 12K-18K. Digital doesn't even come close to that yet.