70mm Film vs 35mm

[BeeBoop]

How much better is 70mm compared to the standard theatre? I've been seeing the 70mm floating around recently and am curious.

 

[arcenite]

Twice as good :thumbsup:

 

[NoTine42]

You'd think 4x as good (you could fit (4) 35mm negatives in the space of a 70mm negative.

But the best IMAX specs rotates the picture orientation on the negative so you get 10x the resolution

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/imax1.htm

 

[BeeBoop]

I know it's bigger. I've read that it's actually 18k resolution and I've also read that the human eye can't tell the difference between 4k and 1080p. So I just want to know from your own experience, can you tell a difference between a normal imax theatre and 70mm? How large is this difference?

 

[mnewsham]

How much better is 70mm compared to the standard theatre? I've been seeing the 70mm floating around recently and am curious.

Its absurdly large, the theater I was in the other day for starwars was 86 ft. wide screen.

It's hard to describe to someone who hasn't seen it. Normal IMAX is certainly alright, but 70mm or the new IMAX w/ laser are both just bigger on a scale that's hard to understand without experiencing it.

 

[BeeBoop]

Its absurdly large, the theater I was in the other day for starwars was 86 ft. wide screen.

It's hard to describe to someone who hasn't seen it. Normal IMAX is certainly alright, but 70mm or the new IMAX w/ laser are both just bigger on a scale that's hard to understand without experiencing it.

Than I will do as you say!

 

[sdifox]

Than I will do as you say!

Just make sure the imax threatre you go to actually has massive screen. In these multiplex days, a lot of imax screens are actually tiny.

Cinespehere size would be nauseating

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinesphere

 

[ImpulsE69]

If you are just watching at your normal theater...none.

 

[Anubis]

Its absurdly large, the theater I was in the other day for starwars was 86 ft. wide screen.

It's hard to describe to someone who hasn't seen it. Normal IMAX is certainly alright, but 70mm or the new IMAX w/ laser are both just bigger on a scale that's hard to understand without experiencing it.

this

saw interstellar presented on 70mm. 30 meter screen, its just nuts

 

[destrekor]

If you are just watching at your normal theater...none.

To be fair, if the local theater actually has the 70mm film, then regardless of screen size, there is a difference to be seen. But it is certainly most easily compared with larger screens. But even with the largest screens, an IMAX 70mm projection will still blow away, in terms of sharpness, even the best pairing of 35mm to screen size.

Also the film grain is heavenly on Imax prints. :wub:

I weep for the unknown future where all film is just beyond dead. There is no way it can remain in production and in projection forever, eventually there won't be the production line to support the film industry. I hope I'm dead by that point but I fear it will happen sooner rather than later.

 

[destrekor]

this

saw interstellar presented on 70mm. 30 meter screen, its just nuts

I was nearly drooling.

I was actually very impressed with the upscaled content as well (shot on 35, digitally enhanced and printed on 70mm), but when the true full-screen IMAX 70mm scenes came on... I was floored by the picture quality.


I so want some feature films to be shot on IMAX 65/70mm, but it is absurdly expensive. I am excited to hear that Nolan will be using 5-perf 65mm as the "smaller" film on his next movie, mixing that in with the IMAX 15-perf 65mm (as opposed to mixing 35mm and IMAX 65mm). Curious if he'll try to work a taller picture ratio out of the 5-perf 65mm as opposed to the common panovision-style uses of the 5-perf 65mm stock. Then again, he still usually does that ultra wide presentation with 35mm, so with 65mm he can achieve the same aspect ratio without using special lens to distort the image.

 

[K1052]

I so want some feature films to be shot on IMAX 65/70mm, but it is absurdly expensive. I am excited to hear that Nolan will be using 5-perf 65mm as the "smaller" film on his next movie, mixing that in with the IMAX 15-perf 65mm (as opposed to mixing 35mm and IMAX 65mm). Curious if he'll try to work a taller picture ratio out of the 5-perf 65mm as opposed to the common panovision-style uses of the 5-perf 65mm stock. Then again, he still usually does that ultra wide presentation with 35mm, so with 65mm he can achieve the same aspect ratio without using special lens to distort the image.

I doubt he will mess with the aspect that much if he intends to to have a 70mm 5 perf release (which looks likely). Also there may be considerable temptation to shoot in Ultra Panavision 70 given the history and content. QT said a couple month's ago that he'd love to see Nolan's version of Battle of the Bulge, another UP70 film, and now we basically have that with the Dunkirk project news.

 

[Ns1]

Nolan and QT are saving the film industry from extinction. I hope Kodak sent them big gift baskets.

 

[mnewsham]

Nolan and QT are saving the film industry from extinction. I hope Kodak sent them big gift baskets.

I never understood why you'd want to move away from a high quality analog source anyway, you can always make it digital later on in whatever format you want. Even if you aren't releasing it in 70mm, filming it in that quality lets you do so much more later with the source.

1970s and 80s starwars for example being shot on 35mm film which can be digitally converted to 4k(though 35mm is limited to around 4k digital). but then in the late 90s and early 2000s Ep. 1-3 were shot digitally in 1080p, they can never be converted to 4k because the source content is only 1080p.

Going to be weird when the UHD 4k star wars box set comes out and Ep 1-3 are upscaled 1080p and ep4-9 are all full true 4k res.

 

[Ns1]

I'm not sure I want to see ep4 in true 4K TBH

 

[destrekor]

Nolan and QT are saving the film industry from extinction. I hope Kodak sent them big gift baskets.

There are a few directors who are just as prolific.

There was a big deal with Kodak and those two were heavily involved, but were joined by others, including studios:

Kodak was about to go to zero — with plans to close the last remaining film production plant, in Rochester, NY — before directors including Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, Judd Apatow, and J.J. Abrams and several studios lobbied for a reprieve. (Abrams is shooting Star Wars Episode VII on film.) Kodak relented after Warner Bros, Universal, Paramount, Disney, and Weinstein Co. committed to buy a set amount of film stock for several years, the company says, confirming a report in The Wall Street Journal.

sauce

 

[BeeBoop]

I was going to find one on this list.
http://www.in70mm.com/news/2016/hateful_8/index.htm

 

[Ken g6]

As I recall, last time I took my Mom to see a movie on IMAX, she got dizzy. I think the size of IMAX is OK, though.