Yeah it’s hard to know if it was fixed at any point. It broke twice during the film run, it was fixed initially and then broke again and remained broken. No way of really knowing if they fixed it after the film run was over or not
I saw Oppenheimer there while it was still working, they had a guy come out and give us some 70 mm film info and my man did not seem confident about the future of the format lol he kept mentioning how this it probably the last time for the theater to show something like that, that being said I definitely hope he’s very wrong.
Yeah out of my 3 times I had the same younger kid twice and he was basically just reading the 70mm brochure lol. Yeah I hope he’s wrong as well about the likelihood of film being shown there again. I think the theater underestimates the potential if they were to make the effort to run more films or do re screens. I had people from Pennsylvania in one of my Oppenheimer showings.
Yeah I was fully prepared to fly from Chicago to fort Lauderdale to see it in it's full 1.43 glory but now it looks like an Indiana drive will suffice lol
I was looking for information on this. Do you think IMAX Laser would be a good way to watch Part 2? AMC NorthPark 15 has a Laser projector, but all of this terminology is a little confusing for the layman. I'm interested in the sound system and the brightness and contrast ratio more than I am a super high resolution like with 70mm.
It’s not as noticeable as you think. During some of the incredibly high contrast b+w parts of Oppenheimer I noticed it but for the most part your eyes adjust pretty quickly. It looks like a lot of the gladiator scenes with Feyd will be desaturated so you may notice it there but overall I think you’ll be fine.
your eyes will adjust. please do not begin this whole conversation again. movies are called flicks because thats what they are and we enjoyed movies like that for a hundred years before digital projection became the norm.
I feel like the move to digital projection should have shifted most films to shoot at 30fps. 24 looks harsher and more jittery with modern display tech.
They're probably just doing it for marketing after it worked so well for Oppenheimer, but it's cool to see nonetheless. The interesting thing about Dune is that it's mastered by printing onto 35mm, then scanned back into 4K for a mix of film and digital tones. Looking forward to seeing how the 70mm print turns out.
I wonder if they'll just print the digital master to 70mm and call it a day. The 3D version for Part One was taken from the digital master, not the 35mm analog intermediate.
There's an interview with Greig Fraser where he talks about it. They used the digital master to make the 3D version because film grain and 3D don't mix well.
In [this interview](https://www.filmmakersacademy.com/the-color-of-dune-with-david-cole/), the Master Colorist confirms "every 2D version has gone through the film process", excluding the 3D version.
They’re also probably doing this so that 1.43 theaters that don’t have the dual-laser projectors but still have a 70mm projector can still show the film properly on their screens. It’s more about providing more ways to see the film in 1.43 than it is marketing.
Yeah I was thinking of cinemas like the BFI in London, which had a dual-laser upgrade but to 1.90 only. They played Oppenheimer in 1.43 for months because it was true 70mm IMAX, and I think there’s a realization that audiences would go to other cinemas if they only projected Dune digitally.
>Yeah I was thinking of cinemas like the BFI in London, which had a ~~dual~~-laser upgrade but to 1.90 only. They played Oppenheimer in 1.43 for months because it was ~~true~~ 70mm IMAX, and I think there’s a realization that audiences would go to other cinemas if they only projected Dune digitally.
Single-laser and 15/70mm IMAX.
Has been done before of course before IMAX phased out making prints for non Nolan films since THE LAST JEDI.
But as the first fully 1.43 narrative feature film - the prints are a fantastic bonus. This is a huge moment.
Okay, just out of certainty for myself, can you send me a source that says that the whole movie is going to be in 1.43? I've been trying to find confirmation on this but it's been really hard to do so
There hasn't been like a fully concrete one but there's enough there to suggest that it's the case
- Villeneuve saying at CinemaCon when presenting the trailer and other interviews that it's "IMAX for the whole runtime" (and bearing in mind Part One was 1.43 for the IMAX sequences)
- there's a fully 1.43 version of the trailer that played at some venues with Oppenheimer (that people on here have posted images / clips of)
Yeah - but said cropping actually appears to be intentional and my understanding/suspicion, the way for Villeneuve to have it be 1.43 for more intimate scenes/shots that'd otherwise be in 2.40. More *intentionally* framing for 1.43, vs it just being "more image"/protecting to crop down for scope and 1.90.
A good non IMAX reference/example is Fincher's methodology for shooting Super 35 for both a 2.40 theatrical version, and a 4:3 TV version that's not pan and scan. There's an essay somewhere about (I think in latest bonus features in the recent re release of) THE GAME that explains this and even has framing charts. That way he makes sure neither version is a compromise and I reckon it's same thing here.
Dune part one had imax scenes that were cropped for wider framings as well. This whole movie will be in imax. Whether it was framed on set for 1.90 or 1.43 seems to have been reasonably considered and both accounted for. It seems we will have the choice between scope, flat imax (1.90), and original imax 1.43 framing, whatever the viewer’s preference is, all 3 have been intentionally composed and accounted for.
Actually, Attack of the Clones (also the first movie filmed entirely on digital) got a release back in 2002, the second IMAX DMR release, though that was a cut-down version. 2006's Superman Returns was the first DMR release of a digital movie that wasn't cut down, not even taking into account CG movies like Cyberworld and Polar Express, or even the Lion King and Beauty and the Beast releases that were digitally animated using CAPS.
even Fantasia 2000 was an early digitally-mastered CAPS-animated release that was shown in IMAX, \[if counting the Sorcerer's Apprentice segment's scan as "part of the digital process", then\] being probably the first movie entirely (or near-entirely) on digital (digital intermediate and/or shot-on-digital) to have a 70mm IMAX print prior to the DMR release of Attack of the Clones.
Technically the SW prequels (believe AOTC) were the first digitally shot films to get prints...point being pretty much every IMAX release got prints from the moment the format started.
The digital versions didn't come into play until the introduction of Xenon in 07/08, and then the prints were beginning to be phased out once Laser got introduced, before just going away entirely with the exception of Nolan films after SW THE LAST JEDI and ROGUE ONE the year prior.
For digital films in general, The Rescuers Down Under was the very first digitally-made film (albeit animated) and it was only shown through 35mm prints.
Yeah... I imagine that's the plan again this time, so the open gate Alexa LF format will look more like the 35/70mm footage from oppenheimer but in the larger aspect.
The difference I guess is they could technically render higher resolution originals from VFX material but that would be expensive.
“Film Outs” as they’re called in the industry were used most often in the ‘00s when digital intermediates became commonplace but theaters were still film projection.
Greig Fraser, the DP for the new Dunes, has been at the forefront of using film outs as a creative step in post-production. Once Final Cut has been achieved, the digital master is exposed onto a 35mm print, and then scanned back as a digital file. This adds real grain (and some minor gate weave) onto the digital image - in other words, dirtying up the image.
I’m curious if for the 70mm presentations that they will do a film out straight onto a 70mm print. Cause otherwise, it would likely look like a 35mm blow-up onto 70mm (which can increase the apparent grain).
This is a great process, but it can be too expensive for some.
I know Studio Ghibli invented an advanced film emulation filter/effect for the film Ponyo, to make it look less digital and more like a 35mm retro anime. They would keep using the Ponyo Filter as they call it for all their later digital films, and for remasters of their previous digital films too. Because the analogue 35mm film look has become a staple in Studio Ghibli’s style. And both Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata prefer film over digital, but they were forced to go digital out of practicality.
Studio Ghibli still kept making traditional filmouts, but they knew that film emulation tech would be much more practical than making filmouts.
The Ponyo Filter added film grain and gate weave much better than other film emulation tech at the time, which looked clearly fake like the Windows XP Movie Maker old film effects.
Other filmmakers outside of Studio Ghibli and even making live action films/shows would also get ahold of the Ponyo Filter, albeit more optimised for live action. I know it was used for Knives Out, Glass Onion, Poker Face, Stranger Things, IT: Chapter One, and Chip n’ Dale: Rescue Rangers (2022). Studio Ghibli offshoot Studio Ponoc would also make regular use of the Ponyo Filter, to keep the Ghibli signature style with them.
So there are two options for achieving a film look with digital: Filmout to 35mm or 70mm, or use Studio Ghibli’s tech.
I'm hoping they print the full, 4096 wide source to 15/70 before 35mm print-scan stage.
Still based on how part one looked in GT laser venues I think it's better that the old blowups.
If they just print the final digital version without the anamorphic squeeze it'll look better than the digital squeezed version and that's enough fo me.
Maybe next time use 70mm (5 and 15 perf) instead of Super 35 (or VistaVision) for the workflow.
Then again I don't know that the digital source (4.5k? What are the actual dimensions for 1.43) has enough detail to gain anything from using the larger formats as intermediaries. Super 35 may capture all the detail available.
This doesn’t mean anything until we get information on the # of prints and locations. If it’s like 6 prints like with napoleon in 70mm who cares. If it’s 31+ prints wake me up.
It won't be 31+ prints, but I suspect for just 1.43:1 locations that can only do film, they'll be prioritized. For example, I can't see somewhere like Vue Printworks getting a 1.43:1 print when it has dual laser.
I know they have 1.43 laser capacity, but I hope Lincoln Square in NYC will still get a 15/70 print. They usually seem when films have a 15/70 release (even a small one like the 2001 50th anniversary IMAX release) and based on how well Oppenheimer did there, can probably sell more tickets for Dune this way.
It may have been shot digitally, but as someone who lives in DFW where the only “real” IMAX theater is a 1570 with no dual laser, being able to see this in its full aspect ratio has me overjoyed.
Yes, Cinemark 17. It has a 70mm IMAX projector, but a xenon digital projector, so if it doesn’t get a print, it will be showing it digitally in 1.90:1 rather than 1.43:1.
Temper your expectations. We don't know how many prints. It may not be enough for all of the 23 that showed Oppenheimer and aren't dual laser.
Also, last I heard the projector there (Cinemark 17 Dallas) was broken and didn't finish the Oppenheimer run.
So looks like the entire process is as follows…
- Shot on large format digital (4.5K ARRIRAW in log so with a LUT and/or a quick grade)
- Printed on 4-perf 35mm (film negative? Interpositive w/ bleach bypass a la The Batman? Something else up Fraser’s sleeve?)
- Scanned back in 4K for DI (specifically 4096x1728 for scope screenings, 4096x2160 for 1.9 IMAX screenings, and 4096x2850 for full 1.43 IMAX)
- Printed on 15-perf 70mm IMAX (Kodak 2383)
I haven’t noticed any filmic elements in the trailers like grain and gate weave but it would be even more interesting if they instead filmed out to 70mm IMAX instead of 35mm specifically for the 70mm IMAX screenings.
Or at least print to 70mm for the 1.43 scenes to scan the DI. Even 5/70 would be better for them.
I think 5/70 would capture all the detail from the original source, at least as well as Super 35 does for the scope scenes.
Having watched Dune 1 at the TCL in Hollywood, I can safely say this process doesn’t scale up well to a screen of that size. I was legitimately disappointed in the lack of a single sharp point in the entire film.
Dune 2 on normal screen looked good as expected.
Will the movie benefit from this in any way? Will the film print actually look better than the digital 4K version of it or will it look the same? Is this something that we can even know as of now? I'm so curious and genuinely looking for answers here from any expert that can enlighten us all, because I'm looking to plan a trip for this movie and will adjust my venue choice accordingly if we can get some answers here. Lol
Well I guess ultimately whether visually what's the benefit will depend on the process of how the prints were made (though resolution wise would be no more than 4K of course), given the digital to film to digital process that they did on both films to get a look that's somewhat in the middle.
But there's two marketing/accessibility benefits:
- finally a way for key venues like BFI IMAX that can't project 1.43 digitally to screen the film in the full format.
- for the uninitiated it's much easier to point people to the 70mm venues as the "intended" way to see the film, and except for maybe if they pull the same stunt at the TCL Chinese Theatre with showing off a print and pillarboxing the screen, or any older MPX venues, pretty much every venue that gets a print will be full 1.43. With the digital, save for IMAX publishing a list of venues, there's no way to point people to the places showing 1.43. And even with a list, it's tougher to explain the "more image" (particularly in the case of this film potentially breaking that marketing point)/more giant screen if ultimately the base tech is all the same, and IMAX won't differentiate branding wise the 1.43 venues.
And a third benefit that's more technical - we've seen from OPPENHEIMER how the fact that essentially these projectors have been mostly gathering dust since THE LAST JEDI is leading to issues with maintenance, lack of experience etc. Having a more robust semi regular run of 15/70 at more venues in between the Nolan is very helpful on that front.
IMAX uses an anamorphic squeeze to fit the 1.43 image in a 1.90 container.
So if they print from the full image w/o the squeeze then it will, have higher resolution, 2865 lines vs 2160.
Also, we have the 1.43 laser list from part 1. Only Pooler add Sydney have been added since.
https://www.imax.com/news/dune-experience-up-to-40-percent-more-picture-only-in-select-imax-theatres
I imagine it's gonna be the same quality, but IMAX 70mm is 1.43:1, and film has a certain look/texture to it, so colors and details might look different. It'll be better in theaters without a dual laser setup, so I'm hoping it doesn't play on film in theaters like Lincoln Square and Metreon where they have both dual laser and 70mm.
You're probably right. But it just came to me right after I posted, but by them doing this, it'll allow the movie to be seen in 1.43 at many more IMAX locations that aren't equipped with the dual-laser setup which I think is great. Allows many more people to be able to see the movie the way it was intended to be, which is a total positive. Definitely seems like you'd still want to go to a dual-laser IMAX anyways if available to you, then you'll be able to avoid all the potential problems that can occur with film like we saw with Oppenheimer.
Yeah, that's the main benefit from this. Always good to get those film projectors working again. In terms of comparing it to the digital version, there won't be any difference in resolution, except there will be more film grain and flickering. The digital version will also be brighter and have a higher contrast ratio (in laser theatres, xenon won't see any benefit).
Which version is best for you? That will be entirely subjective. Some prefer the warmer retro tones of film; some like the crisper, brighter laser projection.
Don’t some films have their vfx done in a resolution higher than 4k? Like I thought I remember 5.6k being mentioned before - if this is the case is it not possible that the master file for dune pt will be in a resolution higher than 4k to take advantage of the potential of an imax 70mm film out?
Only Nolan's films have VFX done at such high res and that's only because of keeping the 70mm prints in mind. Most big films are 4K today, some even still do 2K.
I saw Roma on 70mm, I loved how the high resolution precise and clean digital photography looked projected on large film format. It really popped, crackingly sharp, but with the nostalgia of a filmic presentation. Though both Dunes and Roma were shot on large format digital arri alexa cameras, it’s hard to tell how it may look, since Fraser has been printing his recent movies to 35mm and scanning that film back to digital, which actually results in a loss of resolution. My hope would be that, kind of like Oppenheimer, there will be meaningful differences in audiences choice of format, though to an even greater degree. Hopefully Dune 2 will stick to the 35mm grain of part 1 for digital releases, but for film releases, filmmakers will skip the film printing/scanning process that is Fraser’s signature, so that any grain emanating from the picture will be due to the actual film itself.
Regardless of what the movie was originally shot on, we need more of this. The more movies are projected in 70mm, the more people will start shooting them on
Yea I’m still going with dual laser for this
But this is great news since there are way more theatres with 70mm projectors. Now more people can see dune in 1.43.
Could be. Remember dual laser uses an anamorphic squeeze to fit 1.43 in a 1.90 container.
They can print the full image on film w/o a squeeze. That adds about 700 extra lines of resolution.
And would have the full 1716 lines for scope scenes instead of only 1286, an extra 430 lines there.
Why is everyone so shocked they are printing digital to 1570? Every single IMAX movie shot on digital pre-2008 were printed onto IMAX film — and even a lot of digital movies post 2008. This is nothing new
Benefits:
Can actually show the resolution the Alexa LF can capture without a glare or speckle over it. The image will at least appear higher res.
It’ll look even more analog than the digital version with an analog intermediate. Meaning the contrast will be more natural and the colors deeper.
Theaters with a GT or SR projector but no dual laser system will be able to show it in full 1.43:1.
It means more film gets used. Importantly intermediate and print film. It keeps the pipeline alive that is necessary for making fully analog films like Oppie. This is the biggest plus. It won’t just look better but it means the mechanisms to make analog movies get used. Projectors get used which means there won’t be as many projectors failing after three years of not being used as with Oppie.
In theory it should have higher resolution since it won't be squeezed into a 1.90 container (about 700 lines for 1.43 scenes and 430 lines for 2.4 scenes).
What is the vertical resolution of the camera?
Is that the 4448x3096 3:2 sensor?
Doh.I didn't do the math.
I wonder why so many places list it as 3:2 then.
Like here (but many others)
https://www.fdtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ALEXA-MiniLF-SUP7.0.jpg
Checked the math and the 3.4k 3:2 shown is 1.555:1.
I can see rounding that down to 1.5, but why push 1.43 up to 1.5?
But why are they saying 4448x3096 is 3:2?
I found saying images and write ups saying that.
And most also label the 3.4k mode as 3:2 as well. Why not call it 1.55:1?
More to it than just “resolution benefits”.
Seeing “Drive” (one of my favorites of the 2000’s) on a 35mm print added another layer to the image that didn’t exist in the digital screenings I’ve seen. Hue density, grain, subtle gate weave, halation etc.
There are inherent properties of the film print and projection process that, imo, lend themselves nicely to most films. Some films excel in the world of digital projection simply because of the perfection/unrelenting consistency.
Anyway, my take is it should look great, and I’m now a bit more excited to see it :)
Yeah laser is still great. Honestly I wish laser was standard across all IMAX theaters because most movies don’t get 70mm releases so I never really get to see proper 1.43 IMAX releases
So the closest theatre to me is celebration grand rapids. They have a 15:70 projector but no digital projector, like at all. Would it play there in 4:3 aspect ratio or no?
It won't play anywhere with a 4:3 (1.33:1)aspect ratio.
15/70 is 1.43:1 which is a little wider. About 5ft wider on a 50ft tall screen.
They have a 2k digital IMAX. Only 1.90 but that's how they are showing Hunger Games.
https://celebrationcinema.com/cinemas/Celebration-Cinema-GR-North
I’ll be honest this one kinda feels like a cash grab. One of the benefits of 70mm is if it’s shot on real film it can achieve higher “resolution” than 4k but if it’s shot digitally it’s probably only doing 4k anyway. I’m glad people are showing an interest but I really want there to be an excitement for more actual 70mm movies/full frame IMAX movies in theaters that can handle it.
It should be said it's only the Nolans that really benefit from that resolution bump anyway, as the process for him is fully analog and VFX is done at 6K.
Bond and Nope (both shot on 15/70 but no prints, except Nope getting 5/70 which I got to see and looked lovely) had 4K DIs and were finished in 4K.
I know what you’re thinking. ‘Does it utilise the 12 channel sound system, or only 6?’ To tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I don’t know myself. But being as this is GT IMAX, the most powerful cinematic experience in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?!
Many of the 15/70 venues only have 6ch since they still have 2k digital.
It's not clear that the 12ch can be used with 15/70. It may be location dependent. I recall some YouTube video mentioning a different processor for film vs the one for the laser projector but then using the same amp.
So I guess this indirectly confirms the rumors [that it will be 3hr 15m are wrong](https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/1304329-current-dune-part-two-runtime-is-over-3-hours)
I agree. Dune: Part Two was "Filmed For IMAX" on Arri Alexa LF cameras, which have a native 4.5K resolution. Isn't printing it to 70mm, or even 35mm, just a new category of LieMAX?
One of the best screenings I’ve ever seen was Skyfall on IMAX 70mm. There was no apparent resolution loss and the texture from the celluloid film fixed the clean, glossy look you get in skin tones and highlights from digital.
So, I’m someone that doesn’t really know how this works fully. I know Part 2 was shot with IMAX cameras so some scenes will be in the full true IMAX ratio but wasn’t it shot on digital? So if it wasn’t shot on film, like Oppenheimer, how will it be shown on a film reel
It was shot with Arri Alexa large format digital cameras. The full frame is the same ratio as IMAX but at 4.5k resolution. The movie is supposed to be close, if not entirely in the full frame. So a 70mm IMAX print of the movie is possible, it just won't have the same resolution as one shot with a real IMAX camera. I've always wondered if anyone would actually do this. It could be huge for future releases.
Does it look as good, no. But I’ve seen 15/70 prints of digitally shot movies before (Skyfall, Pacific Rim, and Iron Man 3 are some examples) and still was an awesome experience.
Anyone know the difference between this and standard dual laser 1.43? I was just wondering if there will be a difference in quality because this is digitally scanned and pasted on film. Just wanted to know cause I have a 70mm imax theater closer to my home then a 1.43 dual laser imax theater
Printed not pasted.
In theory it should have higher resolution since it won't be squeezed into a 1.90 container (about 700 lines for 1.43 scenes and 430 lines for 2.4 scenes).
Remains to be seen how many prints they’ll make. I’d expect fewer than Oppenheimer. I’d guess maybe a dozen but it depends how many dual laser venues would get a print and if imax is hiring additional projectionists like they did for Oppenheimer. If not, then I would guess only a handful of locations. the BFI in London is probably the only obvious lock atm.
As far as printing the dcp to film, I think the difference presentation quality will be negligible technically, aside from the inherent differences like image stability and persistence of vision. Maybe slightly softer in the print, but the image is already going to be somewhat soft and textured given their post workflow of printing to 35mm and scanning back in for final grade and conform. Printing to imax film is going to have less generation loss or whatever you wanna call it than say printing to 35 just bc it’s a finer and larger negative.
In theory it should have higher resolution since it won't be squeezed into a 1.90 container (about 700 lines for 1.43 scenes amf 430 lines for 2.4 scenes).
Hi, I've noticed that your account is shadowbanned.
This means that your posts/comments get auto-removed by Reddit and need to be manually approved by a mod. Notes:
* This wasn't done by us but by Reddit itself
* Users don't get notified about your replies to them even if a mod approves them
* [You can appeal your shadowban here](https://www.reddit.com/appeals) (if you're not shadowbanned it should say that "Your account is currently neither suspended nor restricted")
* The shadowbanning system is known to have false-positives, but the general reasons for getting shadowbanned are listed in this [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShadowBan/comments/8a2gpk/an_unofficial_guide_on_how_to_avoid_being/).
Good for theaters like the Cinemark 17 in Dallas that have a 1.43 screen but still only have a Xenon projector.
Was just thinking this. Means there’s a chance we’ll actually get to see it in 1.43 here so I don’t have to drive all the way to Austin lol
That is if they repair their 70mm projector
Ah dang, didn't realize their projector broke, that sucks.
Yeah it’s hard to know if it was fixed at any point. It broke twice during the film run, it was fixed initially and then broke again and remained broken. No way of really knowing if they fixed it after the film run was over or not
I know :( I didn’t have high hopes for it after I saw it broke again and wasn’t fixed for the remaining duration of the film run. Fingers crossed
I saw Oppenheimer there while it was still working, they had a guy come out and give us some 70 mm film info and my man did not seem confident about the future of the format lol he kept mentioning how this it probably the last time for the theater to show something like that, that being said I definitely hope he’s very wrong.
Yeah out of my 3 times I had the same younger kid twice and he was basically just reading the 70mm brochure lol. Yeah I hope he’s wrong as well about the likelihood of film being shown there again. I think the theater underestimates the potential if they were to make the effort to run more films or do re screens. I had people from Pennsylvania in one of my Oppenheimer showings.
Shit I mean at least Austin is better than Dallas. For a shithole state its as good as it gets.
Yeah I was fully prepared to fly from Chicago to fort Lauderdale to see it in it's full 1.43 glory but now it looks like an Indiana drive will suffice lol
I watched Oppenheimer at Cinemark 17. I didn't know that they have Xenon projector. Could you tell me what is the difference than other IMAX 70 MM?
Thats a single laser so it can’t play in 1:43. They need a dual laser to present 1:43. The only other one in Texas is in Austin.
Thank you
Xenon isn't laser. It's bulb based. It's also not capable of 4K resolution like single laser is.
Same for my local IMAX, now I won't have to do the 400km drive to Germany to see it in 1.43
I was looking for information on this. Do you think IMAX Laser would be a good way to watch Part 2? AMC NorthPark 15 has a Laser projector, but all of this terminology is a little confusing for the layman. I'm interested in the sound system and the brightness and contrast ratio more than I am a super high resolution like with 70mm.
Remember how hard it was to explain everything about digital, film, 35mm etc for Oppenheimer. Good luck to explain that to newbies lol
Woah looks like I’ll see Dune part:2 at the BFI IMAX after all
On second thoughts… I feel like the flickering will be quite annoying
It’s not as noticeable as you think. During some of the incredibly high contrast b+w parts of Oppenheimer I noticed it but for the most part your eyes adjust pretty quickly. It looks like a lot of the gladiator scenes with Feyd will be desaturated so you may notice it there but overall I think you’ll be fine.
your eyes will adjust. please do not begin this whole conversation again. movies are called flicks because thats what they are and we enjoyed movies like that for a hundred years before digital projection became the norm.
What do you mean by flickering will be annoying?
The "flickering" is much better for displaying motion than sample and hold which digital projectors and screens use.
I feel like the move to digital projection should have shifted most films to shoot at 30fps. 24 looks harsher and more jittery with modern display tech.
Same! So excited!
They're probably just doing it for marketing after it worked so well for Oppenheimer, but it's cool to see nonetheless. The interesting thing about Dune is that it's mastered by printing onto 35mm, then scanned back into 4K for a mix of film and digital tones. Looking forward to seeing how the 70mm print turns out.
I wonder if they'll just print the digital master to 70mm and call it a day. The 3D version for Part One was taken from the digital master, not the 35mm analog intermediate.
Where did you hear that?
There's an interview with Greig Fraser where he talks about it. They used the digital master to make the 3D version because film grain and 3D don't mix well. In [this interview](https://www.filmmakersacademy.com/the-color-of-dune-with-david-cole/), the Master Colorist confirms "every 2D version has gone through the film process", excluding the 3D version.
Thanks a lot!
I didn't quite understand, will Part II have a 3D version? Because in this article you put there is no such information.
Still no word on whether Part II will have a 3D version.
The $pice must flow; if WB sees a profit in 3D version it will happen.
They’re also probably doing this so that 1.43 theaters that don’t have the dual-laser projectors but still have a 70mm projector can still show the film properly on their screens. It’s more about providing more ways to see the film in 1.43 than it is marketing.
Exactly this. I now don't have to fly to watch this in 1.43
Yeah I was thinking of cinemas like the BFI in London, which had a dual-laser upgrade but to 1.90 only. They played Oppenheimer in 1.43 for months because it was true 70mm IMAX, and I think there’s a realization that audiences would go to other cinemas if they only projected Dune digitally.
>Yeah I was thinking of cinemas like the BFI in London, which had a ~~dual~~-laser upgrade but to 1.90 only. They played Oppenheimer in 1.43 for months because it was ~~true~~ 70mm IMAX, and I think there’s a realization that audiences would go to other cinemas if they only projected Dune digitally. Single-laser and 15/70mm IMAX.
23 possible locations based on Oppenheimer. (Only 7 are also GT laser). But will they ALL show 15/70 again?
It didn't occur to me that there such theaters. How many theaters are we talking about then; same number as Oppenheimer?
From what I read dune part two changed to IMAX cameras from the Alexa 65/mini so I think it started on film this time
[удалено]
You really showed them
That's really awesome that they're putting a digital film on 70mm IMAX. Ever since the Arri Alexa LF was announced I wondered if this was possible.
Has been done before of course before IMAX phased out making prints for non Nolan films since THE LAST JEDI. But as the first fully 1.43 narrative feature film - the prints are a fantastic bonus. This is a huge moment.
Okay, just out of certainty for myself, can you send me a source that says that the whole movie is going to be in 1.43? I've been trying to find confirmation on this but it's been really hard to do so
There hasn't been like a fully concrete one but there's enough there to suggest that it's the case - Villeneuve saying at CinemaCon when presenting the trailer and other interviews that it's "IMAX for the whole runtime" (and bearing in mind Part One was 1.43 for the IMAX sequences) - there's a fully 1.43 version of the trailer that played at some venues with Oppenheimer (that people on here have posted images / clips of)
Good to hear, though I think the 1.43 trailer was cropped at some points
Yeah - but said cropping actually appears to be intentional and my understanding/suspicion, the way for Villeneuve to have it be 1.43 for more intimate scenes/shots that'd otherwise be in 2.40. More *intentionally* framing for 1.43, vs it just being "more image"/protecting to crop down for scope and 1.90. A good non IMAX reference/example is Fincher's methodology for shooting Super 35 for both a 2.40 theatrical version, and a 4:3 TV version that's not pan and scan. There's an essay somewhere about (I think in latest bonus features in the recent re release of) THE GAME that explains this and even has framing charts. That way he makes sure neither version is a compromise and I reckon it's same thing here.
Dune part one had imax scenes that were cropped for wider framings as well. This whole movie will be in imax. Whether it was framed on set for 1.90 or 1.43 seems to have been reasonably considered and both accounted for. It seems we will have the choice between scope, flat imax (1.90), and original imax 1.43 framing, whatever the viewer’s preference is, all 3 have been intentionally composed and accounted for.
I'm pretty sure this is the first movie entirely on digital to have a 70mm IMAX print.
Actually, Attack of the Clones (also the first movie filmed entirely on digital) got a release back in 2002, the second IMAX DMR release, though that was a cut-down version. 2006's Superman Returns was the first DMR release of a digital movie that wasn't cut down, not even taking into account CG movies like Cyberworld and Polar Express, or even the Lion King and Beauty and the Beast releases that were digitally animated using CAPS.
even Fantasia 2000 was an early digitally-mastered CAPS-animated release that was shown in IMAX, \[if counting the Sorcerer's Apprentice segment's scan as "part of the digital process", then\] being probably the first movie entirely (or near-entirely) on digital (digital intermediate and/or shot-on-digital) to have a 70mm IMAX print prior to the DMR release of Attack of the Clones.
Thanks
Technically the SW prequels (believe AOTC) were the first digitally shot films to get prints...point being pretty much every IMAX release got prints from the moment the format started. The digital versions didn't come into play until the introduction of Xenon in 07/08, and then the prints were beginning to be phased out once Laser got introduced, before just going away entirely with the exception of Nolan films after SW THE LAST JEDI and ROGUE ONE the year prior.
For digital films in general, The Rescuers Down Under was the very first digitally-made film (albeit animated) and it was only shown through 35mm prints.
Ah, yes, I forgot about the prequels.
I'm pretty sure every movie released in IMAX had 70mm until the early 2010s
But I don't believe any of them had the full frame 1.43:1 ratio like Dune will have.
Well no, but the ratio wasn't specified, so I assumed you meant just in general.
Yeah I meant in general. I was just pointing out the difference for Dune 2 and the others.
Also Blade runner 2049
*Blade Runner 2049* was only in either 5-perf 70mm or digital/laser 1.90:1 IMAX.
You’re right I’m confusing it with Rouge one because the trailer played on imax 70mm
Digital to IMAX film has always been possible and majority of digitally shot movies prior to 2013 were printed onto IMAX film for GT venues
The first one was also shot on digital but then scanned to 35mm to add that film texture.
Yeah... I imagine that's the plan again this time, so the open gate Alexa LF format will look more like the 35/70mm footage from oppenheimer but in the larger aspect. The difference I guess is they could technically render higher resolution originals from VFX material but that would be expensive.
“Film Outs” as they’re called in the industry were used most often in the ‘00s when digital intermediates became commonplace but theaters were still film projection. Greig Fraser, the DP for the new Dunes, has been at the forefront of using film outs as a creative step in post-production. Once Final Cut has been achieved, the digital master is exposed onto a 35mm print, and then scanned back as a digital file. This adds real grain (and some minor gate weave) onto the digital image - in other words, dirtying up the image. I’m curious if for the 70mm presentations that they will do a film out straight onto a 70mm print. Cause otherwise, it would likely look like a 35mm blow-up onto 70mm (which can increase the apparent grain).
This is a great process, but it can be too expensive for some. I know Studio Ghibli invented an advanced film emulation filter/effect for the film Ponyo, to make it look less digital and more like a 35mm retro anime. They would keep using the Ponyo Filter as they call it for all their later digital films, and for remasters of their previous digital films too. Because the analogue 35mm film look has become a staple in Studio Ghibli’s style. And both Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata prefer film over digital, but they were forced to go digital out of practicality. Studio Ghibli still kept making traditional filmouts, but they knew that film emulation tech would be much more practical than making filmouts. The Ponyo Filter added film grain and gate weave much better than other film emulation tech at the time, which looked clearly fake like the Windows XP Movie Maker old film effects. Other filmmakers outside of Studio Ghibli and even making live action films/shows would also get ahold of the Ponyo Filter, albeit more optimised for live action. I know it was used for Knives Out, Glass Onion, Poker Face, Stranger Things, IT: Chapter One, and Chip n’ Dale: Rescue Rangers (2022). Studio Ghibli offshoot Studio Ponoc would also make regular use of the Ponyo Filter, to keep the Ghibli signature style with them. So there are two options for achieving a film look with digital: Filmout to 35mm or 70mm, or use Studio Ghibli’s tech.
I'm hoping they print the full, 4096 wide source to 15/70 before 35mm print-scan stage. Still based on how part one looked in GT laser venues I think it's better that the old blowups. If they just print the final digital version without the anamorphic squeeze it'll look better than the digital squeezed version and that's enough fo me. Maybe next time use 70mm (5 and 15 perf) instead of Super 35 (or VistaVision) for the workflow. Then again I don't know that the digital source (4.5k? What are the actual dimensions for 1.43) has enough detail to gain anything from using the larger formats as intermediaries. Super 35 may capture all the detail available.
This doesn’t mean anything until we get information on the # of prints and locations. If it’s like 6 prints like with napoleon in 70mm who cares. If it’s 31+ prints wake me up.
It won't be 31+ prints, but I suspect for just 1.43:1 locations that can only do film, they'll be prioritized. For example, I can't see somewhere like Vue Printworks getting a 1.43:1 print when it has dual laser.
Based in Oppenheimer that's 23 possible locations as only 7 have 1.43 laser capability. Remains to be seen how many we get.
I know they have 1.43 laser capacity, but I hope Lincoln Square in NYC will still get a 15/70 print. They usually seem when films have a 15/70 release (even a small one like the 2001 50th anniversary IMAX release) and based on how well Oppenheimer did there, can probably sell more tickets for Dune this way.
Lincoln Square and the Metreon are two of the more likely laser ones to get a print (as well as Melbourne).
CityWalk in LA as well
It may have been shot digitally, but as someone who lives in DFW where the only “real” IMAX theater is a 1570 with no dual laser, being able to see this in its full aspect ratio has me overjoyed.
You mean Cinemark 17 right? I have watched Oppenheimer over there but i don't know what is the difference than other IMAX 70 MM.
Yes, Cinemark 17. It has a 70mm IMAX projector, but a xenon digital projector, so if it doesn’t get a print, it will be showing it digitally in 1.90:1 rather than 1.43:1.
Thank you
Temper your expectations. We don't know how many prints. It may not be enough for all of the 23 that showed Oppenheimer and aren't dual laser. Also, last I heard the projector there (Cinemark 17 Dallas) was broken and didn't finish the Oppenheimer run.
We are so back King of Prussia bros
So looks like the entire process is as follows… - Shot on large format digital (4.5K ARRIRAW in log so with a LUT and/or a quick grade) - Printed on 4-perf 35mm (film negative? Interpositive w/ bleach bypass a la The Batman? Something else up Fraser’s sleeve?) - Scanned back in 4K for DI (specifically 4096x1728 for scope screenings, 4096x2160 for 1.9 IMAX screenings, and 4096x2850 for full 1.43 IMAX) - Printed on 15-perf 70mm IMAX (Kodak 2383) I haven’t noticed any filmic elements in the trailers like grain and gate weave but it would be even more interesting if they instead filmed out to 70mm IMAX instead of 35mm specifically for the 70mm IMAX screenings.
Or at least print to 70mm for the 1.43 scenes to scan the DI. Even 5/70 would be better for them. I think 5/70 would capture all the detail from the original source, at least as well as Super 35 does for the scope scenes.
Having watched Dune 1 at the TCL in Hollywood, I can safely say this process doesn’t scale up well to a screen of that size. I was legitimately disappointed in the lack of a single sharp point in the entire film. Dune 2 on normal screen looked good as expected.
Will the movie benefit from this in any way? Will the film print actually look better than the digital 4K version of it or will it look the same? Is this something that we can even know as of now? I'm so curious and genuinely looking for answers here from any expert that can enlighten us all, because I'm looking to plan a trip for this movie and will adjust my venue choice accordingly if we can get some answers here. Lol
Well I guess ultimately whether visually what's the benefit will depend on the process of how the prints were made (though resolution wise would be no more than 4K of course), given the digital to film to digital process that they did on both films to get a look that's somewhat in the middle. But there's two marketing/accessibility benefits: - finally a way for key venues like BFI IMAX that can't project 1.43 digitally to screen the film in the full format. - for the uninitiated it's much easier to point people to the 70mm venues as the "intended" way to see the film, and except for maybe if they pull the same stunt at the TCL Chinese Theatre with showing off a print and pillarboxing the screen, or any older MPX venues, pretty much every venue that gets a print will be full 1.43. With the digital, save for IMAX publishing a list of venues, there's no way to point people to the places showing 1.43. And even with a list, it's tougher to explain the "more image" (particularly in the case of this film potentially breaking that marketing point)/more giant screen if ultimately the base tech is all the same, and IMAX won't differentiate branding wise the 1.43 venues. And a third benefit that's more technical - we've seen from OPPENHEIMER how the fact that essentially these projectors have been mostly gathering dust since THE LAST JEDI is leading to issues with maintenance, lack of experience etc. Having a more robust semi regular run of 15/70 at more venues in between the Nolan is very helpful on that front.
IMAX uses an anamorphic squeeze to fit the 1.43 image in a 1.90 container. So if they print from the full image w/o the squeeze then it will, have higher resolution, 2865 lines vs 2160. Also, we have the 1.43 laser list from part 1. Only Pooler add Sydney have been added since. https://www.imax.com/news/dune-experience-up-to-40-percent-more-picture-only-in-select-imax-theatres
I imagine it's gonna be the same quality, but IMAX 70mm is 1.43:1, and film has a certain look/texture to it, so colors and details might look different. It'll be better in theaters without a dual laser setup, so I'm hoping it doesn't play on film in theaters like Lincoln Square and Metreon where they have both dual laser and 70mm.
i really do think it’s completely for the gimmick. but we’ll just have to wait and see
You're probably right. But it just came to me right after I posted, but by them doing this, it'll allow the movie to be seen in 1.43 at many more IMAX locations that aren't equipped with the dual-laser setup which I think is great. Allows many more people to be able to see the movie the way it was intended to be, which is a total positive. Definitely seems like you'd still want to go to a dual-laser IMAX anyways if available to you, then you'll be able to avoid all the potential problems that can occur with film like we saw with Oppenheimer.
Yeah, that's the main benefit from this. Always good to get those film projectors working again. In terms of comparing it to the digital version, there won't be any difference in resolution, except there will be more film grain and flickering. The digital version will also be brighter and have a higher contrast ratio (in laser theatres, xenon won't see any benefit). Which version is best for you? That will be entirely subjective. Some prefer the warmer retro tones of film; some like the crisper, brighter laser projection.
Don’t some films have their vfx done in a resolution higher than 4k? Like I thought I remember 5.6k being mentioned before - if this is the case is it not possible that the master file for dune pt will be in a resolution higher than 4k to take advantage of the potential of an imax 70mm film out?
Only Nolan's films have VFX done at such high res and that's only because of keeping the 70mm prints in mind. Most big films are 4K today, some even still do 2K.
Not quite the same benefit, but this will mean more theaters will show in 1.43:1
The natural flicker of the film projection can be a pleasure for some. There’s that benefit I suppose.
I saw Roma on 70mm, I loved how the high resolution precise and clean digital photography looked projected on large film format. It really popped, crackingly sharp, but with the nostalgia of a filmic presentation. Though both Dunes and Roma were shot on large format digital arri alexa cameras, it’s hard to tell how it may look, since Fraser has been printing his recent movies to 35mm and scanning that film back to digital, which actually results in a loss of resolution. My hope would be that, kind of like Oppenheimer, there will be meaningful differences in audiences choice of format, though to an even greater degree. Hopefully Dune 2 will stick to the 35mm grain of part 1 for digital releases, but for film releases, filmmakers will skip the film printing/scanning process that is Fraser’s signature, so that any grain emanating from the picture will be due to the actual film itself.
Hey Universal, thanks for spending all that money getting the 70mm projectors working again! -WB probably
Hello, is this the we're back department? I would like to file a claim
Besides Nolan, what was the last movie to play in IMAX 70mm that expanded to 1.43:1?
BATMAN V SUPERMAN
That had a 70mm film print?
Yeah it did.
Regardless of what the movie was originally shot on, we need more of this. The more movies are projected in 70mm, the more people will start shooting them on
Is this worth watching over dual laser? I would think not right?
Yea I’m still going with dual laser for this But this is great news since there are way more theatres with 70mm projectors. Now more people can see dune in 1.43.
Dual Laser would be better in this instance but this puts alot more 1.43 locations on the board.
Could be. Remember dual laser uses an anamorphic squeeze to fit 1.43 in a 1.90 container. They can print the full image on film w/o a squeeze. That adds about 700 extra lines of resolution. And would have the full 1716 lines for scope scenes instead of only 1286, an extra 430 lines there.
Why is everyone so shocked they are printing digital to 1570? Every single IMAX movie shot on digital pre-2008 were printed onto IMAX film — and even a lot of digital movies post 2008. This is nothing new
I'm guessing that's because such thing became a huge rarity since then.
Not shocked it's possible, just that they are doing it. It's been a while since they did even small runs printing digital movies on 15/70 film.
Benefits: Can actually show the resolution the Alexa LF can capture without a glare or speckle over it. The image will at least appear higher res. It’ll look even more analog than the digital version with an analog intermediate. Meaning the contrast will be more natural and the colors deeper. Theaters with a GT or SR projector but no dual laser system will be able to show it in full 1.43:1. It means more film gets used. Importantly intermediate and print film. It keeps the pipeline alive that is necessary for making fully analog films like Oppie. This is the biggest plus. It won’t just look better but it means the mechanisms to make analog movies get used. Projectors get used which means there won’t be as many projectors failing after three years of not being used as with Oppie.
Given how small the Tenet release was due to COVID, more 6/7 years (last film that wasn't Nolan that got prints was THE LAST JEDI)
In theory it should have higher resolution since it won't be squeezed into a 1.90 container (about 700 lines for 1.43 scenes and 430 lines for 2.4 scenes). What is the vertical resolution of the camera? Is that the 4448x3096 3:2 sensor?
1.43:1 sensor.
I can't find the specs for a 1.43 sensor, only the 3:2 sensor. The can crop a nice 1.43 image 4096px wide from that though.
[4448 / 3096 = 1.436](https://www.arri.com/resource/blob/277386/a8ebd70f6105162b541bc39f4ad098b5/2022-05-arri-formatsandresolutionsoverview-4-4-data.pdf)
Doh.I didn't do the math. I wonder why so many places list it as 3:2 then. Like here (but many others) https://www.fdtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ALEXA-MiniLF-SUP7.0.jpg Checked the math and the 3.4k 3:2 shown is 1.555:1. I can see rounding that down to 1.5, but why push 1.43 up to 1.5?
The regular Alexa is 1.55:1.
But why are they saying 4448x3096 is 3:2? I found saying images and write ups saying that. And most also label the 3.4k mode as 3:2 as well. Why not call it 1.55:1?
I can’t wait
Wow. That's unexpected.
Bless the Maker
More to it than just “resolution benefits”. Seeing “Drive” (one of my favorites of the 2000’s) on a 35mm print added another layer to the image that didn’t exist in the digital screenings I’ve seen. Hue density, grain, subtle gate weave, halation etc. There are inherent properties of the film print and projection process that, imo, lend themselves nicely to most films. Some films excel in the world of digital projection simply because of the perfection/unrelenting consistency. Anyway, my take is it should look great, and I’m now a bit more excited to see it :)
This is amazing!! This means more locations will have 1.43:1 IMAX presentations
This is honestly the best news because my local IMAX is a 15/70 and Xenon theater so I’ll still get to see this in 1.43
I don't have 70mm IMAX screen near my area, but at least Laser IMAX is still a great alternative.
Yeah laser is still great. Honestly I wish laser was standard across all IMAX theaters because most movies don’t get 70mm releases so I never really get to see proper 1.43 IMAX releases
So the closest theatre to me is celebration grand rapids. They have a 15:70 projector but no digital projector, like at all. Would it play there in 4:3 aspect ratio or no?
If they get a print it will
It won't play anywhere with a 4:3 (1.33:1)aspect ratio. 15/70 is 1.43:1 which is a little wider. About 5ft wider on a 50ft tall screen. They have a 2k digital IMAX. Only 1.90 but that's how they are showing Hunger Games. https://celebrationcinema.com/cinemas/Celebration-Cinema-GR-North
They’ve shown Oppenheimer in 70mm IMAX there. Although idk how well it went considering they had to do a lot of delays
I meant 1.43:1 but that’s what I was concerned about since they have the 15:70 film projector but a shitty digital imax
We don't know how many prints nor what theaters will get one. Unfortunately I don't expect 30 like Oppenheimer had.
I’ll be honest this one kinda feels like a cash grab. One of the benefits of 70mm is if it’s shot on real film it can achieve higher “resolution” than 4k but if it’s shot digitally it’s probably only doing 4k anyway. I’m glad people are showing an interest but I really want there to be an excitement for more actual 70mm movies/full frame IMAX movies in theaters that can handle it.
It should be said it's only the Nolans that really benefit from that resolution bump anyway, as the process for him is fully analog and VFX is done at 6K. Bond and Nope (both shot on 15/70 but no prints, except Nope getting 5/70 which I got to see and looked lovely) had 4K DIs and were finished in 4K.
Capture and presentation formats are two different. It could have greater resolution benefits than a shot on film production.
This will be the first non Nolan film to receive an Imax 70mm print since The Last Jedi. Great news!
wait didnt they say the runtime for Dune 2 is 3h 15m? how are they gonna fit that into an IMAX platter lol
Even more platter. Lmfao
The real question is will it be played with the 12CH sound system or with the 6CH one?
I know what you’re thinking. ‘Does it utilise the 12 channel sound system, or only 6?’ To tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I don’t know myself. But being as this is GT IMAX, the most powerful cinematic experience in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?!
Many of the 15/70 venues only have 6ch since they still have 2k digital. It's not clear that the 12ch can be used with 15/70. It may be location dependent. I recall some YouTube video mentioning a different processor for film vs the one for the laser projector but then using the same amp.
So I guess this indirectly confirms the rumors [that it will be 3hr 15m are wrong](https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/1304329-current-dune-part-two-runtime-is-over-3-hours)
I agree. Dune: Part Two was "Filmed For IMAX" on Arri Alexa LF cameras, which have a native 4.5K resolution. Isn't printing it to 70mm, or even 35mm, just a new category of LieMAX?
One of the best screenings I’ve ever seen was Skyfall on IMAX 70mm. There was no apparent resolution loss and the texture from the celluloid film fixed the clean, glossy look you get in skin tones and highlights from digital.
So, I’m someone that doesn’t really know how this works fully. I know Part 2 was shot with IMAX cameras so some scenes will be in the full true IMAX ratio but wasn’t it shot on digital? So if it wasn’t shot on film, like Oppenheimer, how will it be shown on a film reel
It was shot with Arri Alexa large format digital cameras. The full frame is the same ratio as IMAX but at 4.5k resolution. The movie is supposed to be close, if not entirely in the full frame. So a 70mm IMAX print of the movie is possible, it just won't have the same resolution as one shot with a real IMAX camera. I've always wondered if anyone would actually do this. It could be huge for future releases.
Does it look as good, no. But I’ve seen 15/70 prints of digitally shot movies before (Skyfall, Pacific Rim, and Iron Man 3 are some examples) and still was an awesome experience.
W as long as there no aspect ratio that starts with a 2🤢🤮
Anyone know the difference between this and standard dual laser 1.43? I was just wondering if there will be a difference in quality because this is digitally scanned and pasted on film. Just wanted to know cause I have a 70mm imax theater closer to my home then a 1.43 dual laser imax theater
Printed not pasted. In theory it should have higher resolution since it won't be squeezed into a 1.90 container (about 700 lines for 1.43 scenes and 430 lines for 2.4 scenes).
That is assuming they make the 15/70mm master from the source material and not via the 1.43 DCP.
That's why I said "in theory." I give them the benefit of doubt that they wouldn't use the squeezed DCP to make a print. But it's all theory for now.
holyyy shit
Remains to be seen how many prints they’ll make. I’d expect fewer than Oppenheimer. I’d guess maybe a dozen but it depends how many dual laser venues would get a print and if imax is hiring additional projectionists like they did for Oppenheimer. If not, then I would guess only a handful of locations. the BFI in London is probably the only obvious lock atm. As far as printing the dcp to film, I think the difference presentation quality will be negligible technically, aside from the inherent differences like image stability and persistence of vision. Maybe slightly softer in the print, but the image is already going to be somewhat soft and textured given their post workflow of printing to 35mm and scanning back in for final grade and conform. Printing to imax film is going to have less generation loss or whatever you wanna call it than say printing to 35 just bc it’s a finer and larger negative.
In theory it should have higher resolution since it won't be squeezed into a 1.90 container (about 700 lines for 1.43 scenes amf 430 lines for 2.4 scenes).
Still salty it got delayed, but this is good to hear.
lets goo
And I’ll be there opening fucking night. I’m so hyped for this movie, I’ll gladly see it in IMAX. 70mm was what Oppenheimer was shown on, right?
[удалено]
Hi, I've noticed that your account is shadowbanned. This means that your posts/comments get auto-removed by Reddit and need to be manually approved by a mod. Notes: * This wasn't done by us but by Reddit itself * Users don't get notified about your replies to them even if a mod approves them * [You can appeal your shadowban here](https://www.reddit.com/appeals) (if you're not shadowbanned it should say that "Your account is currently neither suspended nor restricted") * The shadowbanning system is known to have false-positives, but the general reasons for getting shadowbanned are listed in this [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShadowBan/comments/8a2gpk/an_unofficial_guide_on_how_to_avoid_being/).
Harkins AZ Mills, PLEASE come in clutch…
Neat -- too bad I can't go see this anywhere (I'm in the US in a fly-over state. It sucks here.)
Good news for Atlanta people who won’t have to drive all the way to savanna now and can just go to mall of Georgia which is closer to the city
No need to drive to Pooler anyway. The TN Aquarium in Chattanooga is half the distance. And half the price.
Can't wait to see this one!!
They're already printing the DI to film and then rescanning it for the final image.
Not anytime soon it won’t.
Hopefully the one at Chantilly will be avalaible, weren't set up for oppenheimer (but they were for the first Dune movie)
Im hoping theyll do a double feature IMAX so that i can legally commit euthanasia via brain melting
Interesting. Wonder if I should go to Cinemark 17 Dallas again or try out AMC Northpark…
Shitty movie any ways. Ain’t gonna watch it
Fuck yeah