The 11-mile long, 600 lbs IMAX print of ‘OPPENHEIMER’

Flashback to the old days (1 month ago)

That's almost a years worth!

43 stone ~ 1.4 boulder

How many pebbles?

I understand 272 kg. Lbs mean nothing to me. :)

I’ve not really been into films but recently I’ve started to pay more attention to directors and screen writers.

I really want to watch Oppenheimer as it interests me but I really really want to watch it on 70mm IMAX, I am lucky enough to love 6 miles away from one and I don’t know if it will be that good or if the marketing team has done a hell of a job.

I’ve been watching videos and reading up about IMAX and cinematography. Every showing is booked up for the first week that I checked. Even the 7am showings.

How good is 70mm imax

15/70mm film to be exact. IMAX 15/70mm is different to standard 5/70mm you would get in a normal cinema.

Yeah I'm stoked...two theaters play in 70mm format near me.

You can still do it through Linux, if you know the right commands..

Yeah, that was pretty cool to see growing up.

You can copy the content more easily tho

It's way bigger than that. Usually cinemas receive movies in multiple terabyte hard drives. Thats because they are using JPEG2000 standard (it varies, but it is close to lossless) and a movie can take up anywhere from 500GB to 2TB (highly dependent on resolution, it can go above 2TB).

Isn't IMAX more like 16K?

And it would fit on a 32GB if you compress it enough :)

King of Prussia seats (center-ish and towards the back) are basically reserved out until August. Even if you want to drive out there you'll have to wait. That's how rare these projectors are lol.

My cousin is flying across half of Canada to stay at my place so we can watch it on 15/70.

I'm going to make a 3 hour drive to my closest real IMAX. Haven't had the pleasure to even see a mini IMAX film and am a fan of Nolan's work so I'll make the time.

The weight is sign of reliability. I always go for reliability.

Heavy is good, heavy is reliable. If it doesn't work you can always hit them with it.

• Borris the bullet dodger

Never believe anyone who says size doesn't matter.

I think it's more about the sheer amount of visual information that's captured on film that size, but okay.

It's interesting, calm down.

Movies are getting really long and I don't know if I like it. I watched Across the Spider-verse recently which was I think 2.5 hours. To be fair it was a fantastic 2.5 hours, but every other movie in the theater was 2 hours plus and one was over 200 minutes long. Half of them were animated, which are usually on the short side and for good reason, because there's never any real meat to the story (Spider-verse again being the exception). Sometimes you just want a relaxed 1 hour 20 minute story; not every film has to be this gigantic grand experience.

I feel like you don't know what astroturfing is. This is just straight up promotional marketing for a movie coming out next week.

I wouldn't call it astroturfy but its so weird to me. Like nobody is walking around being like "The new PS5 weighs 7.5 pounds and has 139 miles of copper in its motherboard!" repeatedly for weeks. (I made up the amount of copper, but the weight is correct.)

Wasn't normal 35mm film about the equivalent of somewhere between 4k and 8k depending on the film stock?

Plus, the projector optics will always limit the sharpness of the picture. No lense is ideal, and even ideal lenses would have fundamental limitations due to diffraction.

I don't think there's any reason we couldn't make a store 18k video.

And we could make screen at much higher resolutions that that at imax size, or even quite a bit smaller, though I suspect it would be absurdly expensive.

Not enough to justify using such a proprietary technology

I can't speak for video, but for audio production that isn't true. Audio signals can be perfectly reproduced, up to some frequency determined by the sample rate and up to some noise floor determined by the bit depth, digitally. Set that frequency well beyond that of human hearings and set that noise floor beyond what tape can do or what other factors determine, and you get perfect reproduction.

See here. https://youtu.be/UqiBJbREUgU

Yeah, but they're likely digitally editing it all now, so it loses that in the middle of the process. Can't really see why it would make sense to print a digital file back onto film.

EDIT: I did some reading, some movies have a solution for this!

Depends on the film itself being used. You can get a pretty insane level of detail on the professional-grade stuff. It's how we're able to do 4K remasters of stuff from decades ago. Digital still has a fair bit to go before it can fully outshine analogue film.

Many lossless video compression algorithms exist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_codecs#Lossless_video_compression

Even uncompressed, they would be large, but not unfeasible. Even assuming about 12 MB per frame (reasonable for lossless 4k) that gives us about 1TB per hour. Using lossless video compression would push that smaller. That's very large for consumers, but not for a film studio. I'm certain a few terrabytes Iof storage are way cheaper than that much film.

Quality so good they can come back to it 20 years from now when blu-ray is an outdated format to make a higher-quality home release, like what's been done with VHS to DVD or DVD to BD

It basically a badge for a more premium film experience. It's a bigger screen, on an aspect ratio that fills the vision, with seating that puts you in the right place, rather than trying to see over the person in front.

The confusing part is there are different types of IMAX's. My nearest cinema has IMAX screens but they are just slightly larger theatre screens for the most part. But downtown there's a 70mm film IMAX and if a film was made for it, I'll go out of my way to see it there - Interstellar and Dunkirk come to mind. Seats are closer to the screen and the aspect ratio is more square, and film just has a certain charm to it.

It's still the highest spatial resolution format. The recent laser systems do win for dynamic range, but for sheer detail you'd need roughly the equivalent of 16K while most theater digital projectors are 2K to 4K.

An estimate for "enough" detail when doing foveated rendering is 12K, so 16K uniform is pretty decent.

It's good at home since it can fit the entire 16/9 display.

That's a theatre issue, not an IMAX one.

I think the theater near Lincoln Center in NYC has this format. I saw 300 there, and something else but I can't remember what. It looks absolutely insane.

There's one full imax in CT being demolished for a bridge. It is a very necessary bridge that's 125 years old and supports the commuter rail into NYC. I doubt the IMAX will be replaced.

Surely even a lossless compression is incredibly smaller. (But you can't truly losslessly convert from film to digital, only commenting on uncompressed 1080p.)

Still works if you replace the SD card with an SSD, only slightly larger in comparison to the reel. Of course this ignores any losses when you digitise the film.

Wow. Very good, thank you.

Can confirm! I worked projection in high school and college. IIRC the longest one I built was one of the Lord of the Rings movies.

Gold's IMAX and Gym

Yay

Oh we'll get to the sloughing!

(Not nearly as much sloughing as I expected though, tbh. They talked it up way more than actually talking about it, which is fine)

It's a reference to the movie "The last house on the left." Not sure about their politics but it's like a horror/paranormal podcast.

Not related to politics, they're horror fans - name is a reference to 'Last House on the Left'. They cover anything that's macabre, be it real or fake, so true crime, serial killers, paranormal events, cults, conspiracy theories, cryptids; that sort of thing.

Might wanna get off the computer every now and then.

Wtf is a tankies

Not sure what that means, sorry.

What does "building prints" mean?

You should do an AMA!

All it takes is one cinema owner that secretly leaks movies to do it

This is hundreds of hard drives rolled up.

It’s practically useless for viewers. I had a friend who was a projectionist in a theater: they went digital and used both 1080 uncompressed or 4K uncompressed. He pointed me to the different formats when they were projected and we couldn’t tell from the seats. Not imax, just a regular theater with 300 something seats.

Correct. That's how most 35mm projectors work as well. The film feeds out from the middle of one platter, through the projector then onto a return platter where it spools from the center out. But if the tail of the film (which is on the outer edge) comes loose and falls off the edge it could cause the entire print to spin off the edge of the platter, one layer at a time. It's like a slinky, the weight of the film falling will make it fall faster and faster. It would end up in a big circular pile that would be an absolute nightmare to get back on the platter.

There's nothing worse than coming into the booth and finding hundreds of feet of film tangled on the ground.