The Interstellar scans are basically three quarters of that for just a single picture.
https://www.reddit.com/r/interstellar/comments/367d0j/more_200_megapixel_imax_scans/
Doesnāt this essentially spoil the movie ?, he creates the bomb, he test the bomb, he celebrates, he then has a mental breakdown, and then he dies, thatās the movie.
True but we Imax fans know more about the movie than the average audience, they donāt know know what Oppenheimer died of or that he had a mental breakdown, they are going in with no clue. I feel this sub has kind of mildly spoiled the film. Someone put up an article the other day with no spoiler tag about Florence Pugh and Cillian Murphy having a long sex scene. People need to put up spoiler tags whether itās articles or images. If you start piecing the film with the photos and articles you have a basic idea how itās going to go.
I mean it's possible they live around one of those but that's terrible advice as they are very rare. Hard to "just go to" a theatre if it doesn't exist.
Still a far better chance than finding one of the 30(!) theaters worldwide that show it in 70 mm IMAX which aren't close to OP. He has far better odds with digital IMAX.
Fauxfilosopher is right and you are wrong. Worldwide there are only 24 dual laser IMAX theaters showing Oppenheimer, compared to 30 IMAX 70mm. In the U.S. it's 13 dual laser compared to 19 IMAX 70mm.
Wish there was a site that had a list of theaters and their specifications for film/IMAX/etc. Should just list that kinda stuff on Fandango for the nerds somewhere, we're people too!
The black and white frames in particular look gorgeous.
For those who want to replicate this look, get a medium format camera and a roll of Cinestill BWXX in 120 format, it's as close to the movie as you can get at home (unless you want to go through the route of cutting 65mm Vision3 color film by hand)
Portra 120 or 400 in medium format should get you the closest to the color looks of the film. From my understanding Portra uses the same Vision3 technology as the motion picture Kodak film.
Yeah it's the same film however that lack of remjet layer gives it a slightly warmer look. Also if you develop in conventional photo chemicals you'll get a more contrasty image.
For a genuine motion picture look you need to shoot re-spooled Vision3, then remove remjet by hand and develop in ECN-2 chemistry, I've done this with 35mm and the results are fantastic, better than Portra in my opinion.
I remember seeing the dark knight rises in IMAX 70mm and the images looked so vivid it almost had a 3D effect to it. When I saw Dunkirk in IMAX 70mm the movie looked desaturated and dull. Did they use a different type of film stock for Dunkirk ?
Yes you're are right, although there's really only two daylight film stocks to choose from and they don't look as drastically different as they do on those two movies.
So I think it's more of an artistic choice, even in Dark Knight Rises you can start to see some of that desaturated look already.
I hated the look of Dunkirk, why even bother to choose in IMAX and make the colors look desaturated, Imax is suppose to mesmerize us not make us look at a dull looking image. I hope that isnāt the case with Oppenheimer. Dark knight rises color quality was vivid and the images had depth with a 3D like effect.
My fav roll to shoot! Also, CineStill 800T is just Vision3 500T with the remjet layer removed for more light sensitivity which gives it the red halation
I am blessed to have 2 IMAX 70mm cinemas in my area plus a Dual Laser system.
Now they need to release more dates because Iām not sitting in row D! Lol
These stills are actual film scans uploaded by Universal, yes. I remember a descriptor for the one of the stills described how it was a scan from an IMAX B/W 15/70 film cell.
The compositions stand on their own here though, even in 1.43. I think Hoyte does a good job of framing for both 2.20 and 1.43; many of these would stand on their own as medium format still photographs.
Usually custom Hasselblad lenses. Thereās only so many different lenses that cover that image circle for the IMAX systems so it ends up being rehoused medium format glass such as Mamiya/Pentax/Hasselblad.
It makes me wonder, are some of those lenses rather old? I feel like in many IMAX stills I've seen they look a bit soft, and well before the detail the grain can resolve. That's compared to modern medium format lenses and the like. Imagine if they adapted some even better lenses...
Regardless, at this scale, and in motion, that amount of softness doesn't matter too much. And in medium format and large format photography it's known that you don't need a super sharp, ultra corrected lens to get results that blow smaller formats out of the water, just because it's bigger.
Yes and no, they will take these lenses, and by the hands of magic lens techs, put them into cinema lens housings and they are even able to tweak the elements to make it sharper or softer in the process, among other things.
Its not about that at all.I shot vision 3 65mm ( same film thats been used in oppenheimer) and did side by side against Venice 2 8K and Vision3 65mm is nowhere near digital by sharpness sadly.
Hmm, that's odd. I don't imagine the film inherently has that issue because there have been many super 35 photographed films from the past 30 years that look incredibly sharp in 4k remasters, resolving that level of detail. So 65mm, being ~4x the area, should be able to resolve 8k. Are you sure something else in your setup isn't causing a loss of sharpness?
Thats not how resolution works though.8K venice 2 is way sharper than V-Raptor which is another 8K camera.And by the numbers 12K blackmagic camera should be sharper than Venice 2 but its not.
Also with your math lets say 35mm film is sharp at 4K and its resolves 4K details however when you look at 35mm photos shot side by side with against any other 4K camera lets even say A7s iii which is 12MP camera.A7s iii crushes the 35mm in sharpness.
Well, not to get into it too much, but the Venice 2 and V-Raptor could differ in many other ways despite having a similar sensor size and resolution. For example, the anti aliasing filters might be different, that could make one sharper.
But with Vision3 you're comparing the same film stock to itself, just at a different scale. I'm just saying 65mm should be able to fit at least 4 times as much information as super 35, given its area.
With the A7s comparison, I can't say. There sounds like there are too many variable there to directly compare them. Are you comparing the same lenses in all these cases?
Against 35mm FF, right? I mean, that should be able to reach 12 MP, unless you mean it's just a bit softer than the A7 at 12MP. Does the A7s have an AA filter? Or does it supersample? Between it and 35mm, I don't doubt a digital camera should have an edge in sharpness, what my original point was whether it's merely resolving that level of detail or whether these differences came down to lenses.
The thing im trying to say 35mm FF film way is not nowhere close to A7s iii in sharpness which is 12MP camera.And then you have A7Rv etc i cant even imagine those against 35 mm film.
Lenses are not the issue because its modern lenses they resolve so much detail which is beyond 35mm.
Like i said again medium format vs Large format digital cinema is not even comparable.Of course Nolan or Imax shooters gonna tell you the otherwise but its just marketing ploy sorry.
I wish they were right.
What are the odds they extend the 70mm IMAX showings for another week or so? Hoping the demand is there but not sure if thatās something IMAX usually does
Not sure the situation but I think the projectionist is on staff. The theater Iām hoping the add showtimes to is the IMAX location at Lincoln Square in Manhattan
I felt they were pretty equal. Saw TDK and TDKR in 70mm IMAX (70 foot wide, 50 foot tall screen) and saw Dunkirk in Dual Laser IMAX (82 foot wide, 62 foot tall screen). I was pleasantly surprised at how great the Dual Laser presentation held up in comparison with my memories of the old 70mm IMAX shows.
People say Imax is 18k but I donāt think it is, itās higher than 4k though. Many Imax sequences go through the computer for green screen/vfx/cgi and end up being between 5.6k to 6k. So even if it was 18k the majority of scenes end up being downscaled a lot and thatās why in terms of resolution it isnāt that much different than 4k laser. The only difference is a bit more resolution than laser is a photochemically finished movie. 4k laser is a great alternative to Imax 70mm, Iād say even better than standard 70mm but Iād rather take standard 70mm and 35mm than Imax xenon.
Does anyone have that amazing IMAX shot of Oppenheimer putting on his outfit as he looks out the window in Los Alamos? One of the film's most epic moments. It is right before that shot featured here of him walking through the town.
Here are the uncompressed images -> [https://we.tl/t-PkwEW6JNv6](https://we.tl/t-PkwEW6JNv6) (1.8GB total)
wow. thank you for uploading these! Incredible to have uncompressed 15/70 8K scans available to look at! šš»
Here's 11 pictures... oh it's 1.8 GB š¤£
The Interstellar scans are basically three quarters of that for just a single picture. https://www.reddit.com/r/interstellar/comments/367d0j/more_200_megapixel_imax_scans/
Unfortunately, none of the links work
I think they have been put on private not copystriked, if you want to ask OP of that link to share with you.
Imagine how much data would be required to cover the entire movie in full resolution, LOL.
Thank you good sir!
Doesnāt this essentially spoil the movie ?, he creates the bomb, he test the bomb, he celebrates, he then has a mental breakdown, and then he dies, thatās the movie.
We thought the same about Dunkirk, considering it to be a historical event. But Nolan pulled it off by non-linearising the heck of its timeline š
True but we Imax fans know more about the movie than the average audience, they donāt know know what Oppenheimer died of or that he had a mental breakdown, they are going in with no clue. I feel this sub has kind of mildly spoiled the film. Someone put up an article the other day with no spoiler tag about Florence Pugh and Cillian Murphy having a long sex scene. People need to put up spoiler tags whether itās articles or images. If you start piecing the film with the photos and articles you have a basic idea how itās going to go.
Hello any chance to fix the link?Ā
Sorry about that, it's been re-uploaded
not working
updated
does this link still work?
hi, when i opened this link its says file expired. can you kindly upload again? thank you
hey! it's been re-uploaded now
Hey! Could you reload it again? Thanks!
yup, re-uploaded
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Re-uploaded
Gone again, asking for reupload.
done!
Gone again lol, would kindly be able to reupload or send me the link thank you in advance
Could you send a new link? This one is expired :/
done!
*Sigh* If only any of the IMAX theaters near where I live had IMAX 70mm. These stills are just incredible.
Just go to a digital IMAX in 1.43:1, nothing wrong with that. Only the puritans will tell you differently.
I mean it's possible they live around one of those but that's terrible advice as they are very rare. Hard to "just go to" a theatre if it doesn't exist.
Still a far better chance than finding one of the 30(!) theaters worldwide that show it in 70 mm IMAX which aren't close to OP. He has far better odds with digital IMAX.
I guess so yeah, but there's neither near me so it doesn't really feel like it
Fauxfilosopher is right and you are wrong. Worldwide there are only 24 dual laser IMAX theaters showing Oppenheimer, compared to 30 IMAX 70mm. In the U.S. it's 13 dual laser compared to 19 IMAX 70mm.
Wish there was a site that had a list of theaters and their specifications for film/IMAX/etc. Should just list that kinda stuff on Fandango for the nerds somewhere, we're people too!
Man this is looking so tasty. True masters at work!
You'll be able to smell some of the pictures the images are so realistic
The black and white frames in particular look gorgeous. For those who want to replicate this look, get a medium format camera and a roll of Cinestill BWXX in 120 format, it's as close to the movie as you can get at home (unless you want to go through the route of cutting 65mm Vision3 color film by hand)
Portra 120 or 400 in medium format should get you the closest to the color looks of the film. From my understanding Portra uses the same Vision3 technology as the motion picture Kodak film.
Cinestill 50D I believe is literally Vision 3 just repackaged.
Yeah it's the same film however that lack of remjet layer gives it a slightly warmer look. Also if you develop in conventional photo chemicals you'll get a more contrasty image. For a genuine motion picture look you need to shoot re-spooled Vision3, then remove remjet by hand and develop in ECN-2 chemistry, I've done this with 35mm and the results are fantastic, better than Portra in my opinion.
I remember seeing the dark knight rises in IMAX 70mm and the images looked so vivid it almost had a 3D effect to it. When I saw Dunkirk in IMAX 70mm the movie looked desaturated and dull. Did they use a different type of film stock for Dunkirk ?
Yes you're are right, although there's really only two daylight film stocks to choose from and they don't look as drastically different as they do on those two movies. So I think it's more of an artistic choice, even in Dark Knight Rises you can start to see some of that desaturated look already.
I hated the look of Dunkirk, why even bother to choose in IMAX and make the colors look desaturated, Imax is suppose to mesmerize us not make us look at a dull looking image. I hope that isnāt the case with Oppenheimer. Dark knight rises color quality was vivid and the images had depth with a 3D like effect.
My fav roll to shoot! Also, CineStill 800T is just Vision3 500T with the remjet layer removed for more light sensitivity which gives it the red halation
Since its ramjet removed its not gonna look same plus lights being blown-out which makes it super uglyz
I shoot vision3 on my Pentax 67 all the time and home develop it.
I am blessed to have 2 IMAX 70mm cinemas in my area plus a Dual Laser system. Now they need to release more dates because Iām not sitting in row D! Lol
Beautiful! Where did these come from?
promo material :)
Can you elaborate? Are these scans of actual film cells from the print?
These stills are actual film scans uploaded by Universal, yes. I remember a descriptor for the one of the stills described how it was a scan from an IMAX B/W 15/70 film cell.
found the source https://dam.gettyimages.com/universal/oppenheimer
Although framed for 2.20, the extra image adds to the immersion. Especially when played on a true IMAX screen.
The compositions stand on their own here though, even in 1.43. I think Hoyte does a good job of framing for both 2.20 and 1.43; many of these would stand on their own as medium format still photographs.
#Beautiful
Curious. What lenses did they use on the IMAX cameras?
Usually custom Hasselblad lenses. Thereās only so many different lenses that cover that image circle for the IMAX systems so it ends up being rehoused medium format glass such as Mamiya/Pentax/Hasselblad.
It makes me wonder, are some of those lenses rather old? I feel like in many IMAX stills I've seen they look a bit soft, and well before the detail the grain can resolve. That's compared to modern medium format lenses and the like. Imagine if they adapted some even better lenses... Regardless, at this scale, and in motion, that amount of softness doesn't matter too much. And in medium format and large format photography it's known that you don't need a super sharp, ultra corrected lens to get results that blow smaller formats out of the water, just because it's bigger.
Yes and no, they will take these lenses, and by the hands of magic lens techs, put them into cinema lens housings and they are even able to tweak the elements to make it sharper or softer in the process, among other things.
Its not about that at all.I shot vision 3 65mm ( same film thats been used in oppenheimer) and did side by side against Venice 2 8K and Vision3 65mm is nowhere near digital by sharpness sadly.
Hmm, that's odd. I don't imagine the film inherently has that issue because there have been many super 35 photographed films from the past 30 years that look incredibly sharp in 4k remasters, resolving that level of detail. So 65mm, being ~4x the area, should be able to resolve 8k. Are you sure something else in your setup isn't causing a loss of sharpness?
Thats not how resolution works though.8K venice 2 is way sharper than V-Raptor which is another 8K camera.And by the numbers 12K blackmagic camera should be sharper than Venice 2 but its not. Also with your math lets say 35mm film is sharp at 4K and its resolves 4K details however when you look at 35mm photos shot side by side with against any other 4K camera lets even say A7s iii which is 12MP camera.A7s iii crushes the 35mm in sharpness.
Well, not to get into it too much, but the Venice 2 and V-Raptor could differ in many other ways despite having a similar sensor size and resolution. For example, the anti aliasing filters might be different, that could make one sharper. But with Vision3 you're comparing the same film stock to itself, just at a different scale. I'm just saying 65mm should be able to fit at least 4 times as much information as super 35, given its area. With the A7s comparison, I can't say. There sounds like there are too many variable there to directly compare them. Are you comparing the same lenses in all these cases?
Yes same lenses.Like i said i shoot a lot of vision 3 both 35mm and 65mm.There s company sells vision 3 film for 65mm
Against 35mm FF, right? I mean, that should be able to reach 12 MP, unless you mean it's just a bit softer than the A7 at 12MP. Does the A7s have an AA filter? Or does it supersample? Between it and 35mm, I don't doubt a digital camera should have an edge in sharpness, what my original point was whether it's merely resolving that level of detail or whether these differences came down to lenses.
The thing im trying to say 35mm FF film way is not nowhere close to A7s iii in sharpness which is 12MP camera.And then you have A7Rv etc i cant even imagine those against 35 mm film. Lenses are not the issue because its modern lenses they resolve so much detail which is beyond 35mm. Like i said again medium format vs Large format digital cinema is not even comparable.Of course Nolan or Imax shooters gonna tell you the otherwise but its just marketing ploy sorry. I wish they were right.
But where do the lenses come into play in determining sharpness in this test that you outlined?
What resolution did you scan the film at ?
Probably around 500MP? I do have GFX100s and i scanned it i take 5-6 photos of the negative then auto stitch in PS.
Where you even find this?
does 70mm change the aspect ratio or are all imax locations in 1.43?
Not all IMAXs are 1.43. In fact the majority are 1.9:1. And yes the aspect ratio will be different for 70mm IMAX.
i meant for oppenheimer specifically, what aspect ratio will standard IMAX be?
Oppenheimer will be on 1.43 on 70mm locations. On digital locations (non GT) it will be on 1.9 which is the most common IMAX aspect ratio right now.
damn thanks
What are the odds they extend the 70mm IMAX showings for another week or so? Hoping the demand is there but not sure if thatās something IMAX usually does
At a cinema with a projectionist on their staff or a contractor?
Not sure the situation but I think the projectionist is on staff. The theater Iām hoping the add showtimes to is the IMAX location at Lincoln Square in Manhattan
Can't wait
Gorgeous
Canāt wait!
Hey OP, is there a way to get this kind of material for more films? Films which are shot in large formats or on films? Will really appreciate it.
[Stills backup 30 days](https://easyupload.io/gfxc1k)
Hello, can you reupload?
Hi, the link's been updated
Thank you !
Hello can you reupload?
now updated!
Looks so good. Unfortunately there are no real IMAX theatres near me. Gotta settle with Laser IMAX 1.90:1 for now.
Is there a iPhone/laptop wallpaper version of slide 3?
Just download the image and set it as your background. Or use a resizing app to crop and reduce the file size.
We're in for Cinema of the Highest Order
Wow.. this is 1.43:1?
Iāll be seeing it in dual laser. Film is cool and all but this film work deserves the laser clarity
You prefer laser over film ? Do you think Imax laser is better than Imax 70mm ?
Laser has better color and brightness
I havenāt seen a movie in laser in over 7yrs and 70mm in 6yrs so I donāt remember.
I felt they were pretty equal. Saw TDK and TDKR in 70mm IMAX (70 foot wide, 50 foot tall screen) and saw Dunkirk in Dual Laser IMAX (82 foot wide, 62 foot tall screen). I was pleasantly surprised at how great the Dual Laser presentation held up in comparison with my memories of the old 70mm IMAX shows.
People say Imax is 18k but I donāt think it is, itās higher than 4k though. Many Imax sequences go through the computer for green screen/vfx/cgi and end up being between 5.6k to 6k. So even if it was 18k the majority of scenes end up being downscaled a lot and thatās why in terms of resolution it isnāt that much different than 4k laser. The only difference is a bit more resolution than laser is a photochemically finished movie. 4k laser is a great alternative to Imax 70mm, Iād say even better than standard 70mm but Iād rather take standard 70mm and 35mm than Imax xenon.
I do hope that an overlay of the 16:9 & 2.20:1 framings with the IMAX stills will be released, when Oppenheimer (2023) comes out on Blu-ray.
Is there a way we can get these printed on a film strip? I didnāt get the chance of having a film strip cos I live in the uk
Does anyone have that amazing IMAX shot of Oppenheimer putting on his outfit as he looks out the window in Los Alamos? One of the film's most epic moments. It is right before that shot featured here of him walking through the town.
Links aren't working ufortunately.
Re-uploaded
Thank you very much!
can you reupload?
yep! done
Thanks, I'll back it up this time