-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The death of 70mm IMAX makes me sad
- Thread starter nhlducks35
- Start date
- Status
I don't know how I forgot Baraka and Samsara, kind of the most obvious ones.
MiamiWesker
Member
I know all about Liemax I just didn't know real IMAX was changing. But aren't digital projectors better than film ones, I don't get why this is a step back. Its cause they are getting digital projectors that don't have as good a resolution?
I have recently saw both The Master and 2001.
Honestly, the way those films were shot...I mean. 65mm/70mm.. looks so out of this world, and so far above and beyond what's used today. Just unreal.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Doesn't Ron Fricke own the 65mm camera he uses? It is not IMAX, but at least we can expect another sequel to Baraka shot in 70mm film in 10 years or so, maybe another one in 20.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Yeah, studios are forcing the abandonment of film in favor of digital projection so a lot of theaters don't really have a choice. My little, old single screen local theater is probably closing by the end of the year because they can't afford it and there's not enough Kickstarter interest to get them the $50,000 they need for it. Which isn't surprising since hardly anyone goes there anymore. I'm not surprised it's the same even with the vastly superior 70mm IMax theater screens.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Yep, there are two old theaters in Ann Arbor that still project film and seems to be doing fairly well, but only because of the University and Ann Arbor Film Festival.
He builds his own, but there's reason to doubt their next project will be film. They considered digital for Samsara.
GameAddict411
Member
The Imax theater I have been to had a curved screen, so it's probably the second one on your list. it was huge, no massive in size. If the 70mm is even bigger I don't think it will add much to the experience.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Coincidentally I'm in Michigan also.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Damn it
In 10 years I imagine that 16K will be a standard, if we're going by 2, 4, 8, 16.
Here's an extrapolation of 16K based on 4K * 4. It'll be wider than 70mm, I guess something like 24K would encompass 70mm.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
Not where i live, the LieMax is the usual for any modern theater size in my area. Los Angeles
You know what makes me sad? Movies that are not in perfect 16:9 screen size when they were filmed in IMAX.
Like the Guardians of the Galaxy blu ray. Only the 3D version shows the IMAX scenes. With the 2D version you only see it with black bars (at least that's what my friend who bought it told me). That's why I loved the avengers blu ray. A TV with the whole screen used.
Like the Guardians of the Galaxy blu ray. Only the 3D version shows the IMAX scenes. With the 2D version you only see it with black bars (at least that's what my friend who bought it told me). That's why I loved the avengers blu ray. A TV with the whole screen used.
Sounds to me, you're the offender here..
Unknown Soldier
Banned
Film is an analog format and the actual effective resolution of film starts to degrade the moment the original negative is shot. I wonder how many actual 65mm and 70mm films were properly vaulted in climate-controlled chambers and retain anything close to their original quality.
The neat thing about digital photography is assuming your hard drives aren't all fried, the quality remains the same forever. Most films shot in conventional Super 35mm and Panavision will never look the same way they did when originally exhibited theatrically. It's possible to take a negative which has been stored in less-than-optimal conditions and restore it to almost it's former glory, but the expense to do that is very great and not a lot of films receive that kind of remaster attention.
A film like Blade Runner received a meticulous restoration and it's classic physical and optical effects look pristine as they did in 1982. Meanwhile Terminator 2: Judgment Day which was finished on film in the early days of 3D CG where they actually overlaid the CG onto the film negative has been waiting for a restoration for decades now and the various Blu-ray re-releases look more and more ancient every time around.
There's a lot more to analog film than just a chart with colored boxes, because it's an analog format, produced using a sensitive chemical process, which is incredibly delicate and easy to destroy. Most films will never have anything close to the effective resolution in those colored boxes, because of how they were shot, how the editing process went, how negatives were stored and how long, etc.
The studios have moved to digital moviemaking for a reason, and surprisingly enough cost is only one small reason why. Film is just a pain in the ass, and unless you're one of the really old-school Hollywood directors you have moved to digital movie cameras and you're happy as a clam because it's so much easier to work with, edit, and overlay SFX onto digital files than traditional film.
The neat thing about digital photography is assuming your hard drives aren't all fried, the quality remains the same forever. Most films shot in conventional Super 35mm and Panavision will never look the same way they did when originally exhibited theatrically. It's possible to take a negative which has been stored in less-than-optimal conditions and restore it to almost it's former glory, but the expense to do that is very great and not a lot of films receive that kind of remaster attention.
A film like Blade Runner received a meticulous restoration and it's classic physical and optical effects look pristine as they did in 1982. Meanwhile Terminator 2: Judgment Day which was finished on film in the early days of 3D CG where they actually overlaid the CG onto the film negative has been waiting for a restoration for decades now and the various Blu-ray re-releases look more and more ancient every time around.
There's a lot more to analog film than just a chart with colored boxes, because it's an analog format, produced using a sensitive chemical process, which is incredibly delicate and easy to destroy. Most films will never have anything close to the effective resolution in those colored boxes, because of how they were shot, how the editing process went, how negatives were stored and how long, etc.
The studios have moved to digital moviemaking for a reason, and surprisingly enough cost is only one small reason why. Film is just a pain in the ass, and unless you're one of the really old-school Hollywood directors you have moved to digital movie cameras and you're happy as a clam because it's so much easier to work with, edit, and overlay SFX onto digital files than traditional film.
I do not want the picture to be zoomed in like back in the days when they just cut the right and lift side of the picture to fit a 4:3 screen..I want the same screen just with more "information". maybe my english is not good enough to transport what I mean.
darkazcura
Member
There's one more option actually. Some of the "traditional IMAX" theaters have converted their 70mm theaters to digital projectors while maintaining the same size screen/aspect ratio. So it's LieMax (or not? seeing as the screen size is the same), I suppose, but not a smaller screen. Unfortunately that is what happened over here in MA with the Jordan's Furniture theaters, but honestly, I haven't really noticed it too much. I'm not sure what the resolution of these screens are, but I'm guessing it's what the OP said? I'm not really sure this kind of conversion is really that big of a deal as long as the aspect ratio and size of the screens are maintained come to think of it. It's your third example that really bothers me when they are advertised as "IMAX".
I typically loath small screens at cinemas, why pay all that money to watch a film on something so small.
For something like IMAX you need a film with lots of spectacle and epic scale to really make it worth it. and the space required to have a functioning multiple screen cinema complex is terribly difficult to find. And most importantly ordinary plebs won't notice the difference at face value.
the only IMAX I know of is in Waterloo
For something like IMAX you need a film with lots of spectacle and epic scale to really make it worth it. and the space required to have a functioning multiple screen cinema complex is terribly difficult to find. And most importantly ordinary plebs won't notice the difference at face value.
the only IMAX I know of is in Waterloo
Is the blu ray even out yet, I can't see them putting the Imax ratio out on blu ray since it was only used to drum up more people to see the viewings at the Imax theaters since the sensor for the camera allowed it. If the director intended the taller ratio he would have gone with 1:85 for the regular theater showings.
I will admit it did almost make me want to go see Skyfall in Imax for a second viewing.
Tron Legacy(Select Scenes) and Oblivion did something similar.
SuicideUZI
Member
Well I just learned that I've never seen true IMAX and the closest one is around 2 hours away :-(
I would say that the 3D Liemax is still a better experience than the standard non-imax showings tho
70mm IMAX can be all the ks in the world, but the scans and masters are not. Interstellar for example is 4k no matter what screen or projector you watch it on because the master is only 4k.
Gemüsepizza
Member
Basically 70mm IMAX is the highest quality you can get in terms of pixels and resolution.
A Blu-ray has a movie playing at 1920 x 1080
A 4K projector has a movie playing at 4096 x 2160
70mm IMAX has a movie playing at a resolution of about 12000 x 4500.
In terms of theaters, there's only a few theaters that play real IMAX (70mm) and more that are called LieMax. Left is normal 35mm, middle is LieMax, and right is 70mm.
And what resolution does CGI in IMAX movies have? Right.
The picture also is massively misleading. What has aspect ratio and resolution to do with screen size? Big, normal screens (for 4K projection) do exist, too.
SuicideUZI
Member
"INTERSTELLAR was shot using a combination of 35mm anamorphic film and 65mm 15 perf IMAX FILM."
This might be a dumb question but why not just shoot the entire movie with the imax cameras? If they are already paying for the cameras i would think it wouldn't cost THAT much more to just film the entire movie that way. I wondered this about batman and hunger games 2 as well
This might be a dumb question but why not just shoot the entire movie with the imax cameras? If they are already paying for the cameras i would think it wouldn't cost THAT much more to just film the entire movie that way. I wondered this about batman and hunger games 2 as well
As I just wrote the movie was mastered in 4k. It seems Nolan used 65mm for certain shots that required additional detail during grading, everything was eventually downconverted to 35mm level 4k.
That can also go the other way around, by the way. Some movies mastered in 4k are shot using 2k cameras, or a mix of cameras with varying resolutions, or were shot in 4k but contain effects rendered at 2k.
maquiladora
Member
It's still kinda expensive and impractical to use IMAX cameras for everything.
I also read once that they are loud, and take more time to prepare for a shot.
WarrenMax007
Member
There are no 70 IMAX theaters in my country, only digital. But the bext thing about IMAX is sound. It beautiful and loud.
And i think everyone should abandon that stupid 3D bullshit and show all movies in IMAX 2D.
And i think everyone should abandon that stupid 3D bullshit and show all movies in IMAX 2D.
Fuck choice, amirite?
Unknown Soldier
Banned
Christopher Nolan has commented that the IMAX cameras are gigantic and the platforms required to support them very inconvenient for most kinds of filming.
He shot only a few sequences of The Dark Knight in IMAX as well, that's why the Blu-ray of that movie features varying aspect ratios during it's runtime.
WarrenMax007
Member
What choice? When movie comes out in 3D you have 3 options: IMAX 3D, regular 3D and 2D on normal screen. And you can't see this movie in IMAX 2D. 3D adds nothing to the movie especially when none of the movies are actually shot in 3D, they just convert it to 3D in post-production. I'm so glad Nolan doesn't like 3D so i got to see Interstellar in IMAX 2D.
Unknown Soldier
Banned
Most films that were shot on film today now pass through a 2K or 4K DI process, and the SFX are rendered for the 2K or 4K resolution target. Editing and grading occurs at the 2K/4K DI step. The filmmakers never touch the original film negatives past the initial filming and as such the film doesn't even really exist outside of the 2K/4K DI.
One of the biggest obstacles currently facing the upcoming Blu-ray 4K format is that until the last 1-2 years, most movies went through a 2K DI process and will not benefit from release on Blu-ray 4K because they will have to be upscaled to 4K anyways. The Hobbit films were all done with 2K DIs for instance.
Also is it me or do the new digital projection systems have shitty black levels?
Why did they do that with Hobbit? That spent all that money on this really advanced Red cameras and didn't use that resolution? I mean I know it wasn't going to be projected in 4K anywhere, but for the future wouldn't they want to have done it right the first time? Was the cost and time to render everything in 4K too great? Has anyone actually ever gone back to a film with CG and re-rendered shots in higher resolution? Star Wars I guess?
Rktk
Member
No, fuck 3D, it's over already.
Black levels of Digital rarely look as good as film.
I feel that in some way, for most of the world it is not so much that 70mm IMAX is dying but rather that it was stillborn. The economics are simply not there for most places to have an actual 70mm IMAX projector + screen. Space is an issue, maintenance takes more work, using actual film reels is also more of a hassle these days. This is why Digital IMAX is taking off much faster. If you're going to introduce the IMAX brand into a new premium screen in your cinema today, there's almost zero chance that you would look at the numbers and decide to go with a 70mm screen. The advantages of introducing a digital screen and still charging the same premium ticket prices is far more attractive, and it also makes the screen far more compatible for other non-native IMAX blockbusters all year round.
Nolan never uses DIs, he's a fan of photochemical color grading.
postcyberpunk
Banned
And most of those films first seen in theaters were not exactly how the director, d.p., colorist saw it due to a variety of issues relating to creation, storage, packaging, shipping, theater projectors and projectionists. The idea of a perfect first run, or whatever you wnat to call it, is a myth.
Still, it should be an artistic choice... not up to trends or valuation.
Yeah the big screens going digital are a little murky to describe because there are a ton of different variations. Some layer multiple projectors to get the image right, others are looking at laser systems that haven't come out yet. Some of them can look quite nice while others don't even cover the full screen anymore. You'll notice that a lot of these end up being called "giant screen" after conversion because they aren't usung IMAX's tech any more.
EDIT: and this is an IMAX Dome just to clarify from earlier.
WarrenMax007
Member
Well considering that movies are filmed in digital - it won't matter.
Eh? You just completely missed the point. It's the display technology I have an issue with, not the source format.
And yes, I know this thread is discussing the source format. But it's the shitty digital projectors in cinemas that are the real issue. They need to improve drastically.
biggersmaller
Banned
Interesting thread. I've never gone to IMAX movies outside of the awesome documentaries shown at the Science Museum of Minnesota. I hope those will still be produced (?). I avoided AMC IMAX versions often because they're 3D only and the knowledge the screen is smaller than that at the museum for more money. Though, I had assumed it was just the full IMAX stock on a smaller (albeit still large) screen but apparently that's not the case.
My GT30 just died. I couldn't find a suitable 65"+ replacement without spending a fortune. Got a Vizio in a pinch for the value. RIP good black levels 2011 - 2014.
My GT30 just died. I couldn't find a suitable 65"+ replacement without spending a fortune. Got a Vizio in a pinch for the value. RIP good black levels 2011 - 2014.
Yankee Ruin X
Member
It's true I have the GOTG Blu Ray and its on two discs. Disc 1 is 3d with full screen 16:9 IMAX scenes but changes back to the other ratio so you get black bars when its not a IMAX scene and disc 2 is the normal 2d version with no IMAX scenes so you get black bars throughout.
I agree with you though I hate black bars, I have a 124" screen and projector and also agree Avengers looks stunning as it fills the entire screen, it looks awesome. But then its rare you get films that do that, Avatar is another one that is full screen and again looks great. Then you get films that have the changing aspect ratios like Guardians where only certain scenes are full screen, the Dark Knight and DKR do that too.
I hope down the line all films are shot in a ratio that means I actually get to fill my entire screen as it does suck having huge black bars and doesn't make me feel like its very "cinematic".
WarrenMax007
Member
I don't know, maybe you should just buy normal 2:35:1 screen?
terrisus
Member
"The highest quality you can get?"
Really?
It's impossible to get higher quality than that?
That's the absolute peak that humans will ever achieve?
Well, wrap it up then.
Then his 1.85:1 movies will have black bars on the side. What we need are screens that can be adjusted to OAR just like theaters
What are you talking about?
There is no one doubting that we won't get better stuff in the future as digital resolutions increase; what is the point of your post?!
- Status