I saw the 70mm Imax last night. The quality of projection was outstanding, bordering on too much information in my opinion. Pores, wrinkles, errant hairs, etc. I was too close to the front for comfortable viewing and so had to move my head around a lot. Ah well.
The sound can only be described as punishing. All four of us were baffled at the decibels, and our ages spanned teenagers to fifty-somethings. There is no need for this volume if writing and cinematography are doing their jobs - we won’t fall asleep. Tell us a story without ruining what little hearing remains, pretty-please.
The theater was absolutely spotless, and the sold out crowd was perfectly behaved. No cell phones, no talking, etc. I think the rather expensive Imax experience brings people who want a cinematic experience without the bullshit.
And the movie itself? I liked the story, the cinematography, the use of sound (if not the volume), and the pacing of the narrative. I don’t know how this long movie could have been shorter. A+
The aspect ratio looked like 6x7 to me. I prefer 16x9 or so, but wow what a picture.
I take a tissue with me and roll two little balls that I stuff in my ears when the volume gets that loud. My tinnitus is bad enough.
first result from a Google search shows "With IMAX format, each frame is 15 perforations wide, and the area of the frame is about 52mm high by 70mm wide " 6X7 would of course be 60X70mm so darn close.
The sound can only be described as punishing. All four of us were baffled at the decibels, and our ages spanned teenagers to fifty-somethings. There is no need for this volume if writing and cinematography are doing their jobs - we won’t fall asleep. Tell us a story without ruining what little hearing remains,
the lab was a motion picture lab which modified their B&W negative machine tohandle 65mm. Film processing was done at Fotokem in Los Angeles. I would guess that Fotokem ran the same process that they would use with 35mm 5222. (which implies D96)Does anybody know what Nolan had the Double-X developed in? D-96?
the lab was a motion picture lab which modified their B&W negative machine tohandle 65mm. Film processing was done at Fotokem in Los Angeles. I would guess that Fotokem ran the same process that they would use with 35mm 5222. (which implies D96)
much background info at
Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema NSC FSF ASC gets up-close &…
Hoyte van Hoytema FSF NSC ASC reveals details about capturing Christopher Nolan's nail-biting thriller in IMAX (15-perf) format using KODAK 65mm…www.kodak.com
Seeing the movie motivated me to set-up the projector (ProCabin 67Z w/150mm lens) and view some 6x7 slides which I haven't done in a while. I have many hundreds if not thousands of them mounted in both glass and cardboard mounts. Using a 50x67" screen (84" diagonal, 4:3 aspect) gives you the 70mm IMax visual sensation. If the immediate foreground of the slide is sharply focused, you get the sensation of standing right there. Most of my slides are of landscapes and I took care when shooting them to use the hyperfocal distance of the lens (much easier with Pentax lenses) to keep the foreground and background in sharp focus throughout. If that foreground is, say grass, then the individual grass blades are sharply focused accentuating the "standing right there" sensation.
Most of my shots are taken in landscape orientation but a few of them are portrait compositions and those won't fit onto the screen without moving the projector further in. I could save those for last or change the FL of the lens to, say 200mm. Multiplying 200mm by the reciprocal of the aspect ratio seems to fit. Cabin did make a 200mm lens for the 67Z but I haven't found any for sale. Below is a snap of the screen as set-up over the weekend with a cardboard mounted slide. The image was taken on a hiking trip to Torre del Paine NP in Chile.
We haven't exposed ourselves to a crowded theater since the pandemic started. Our tradition was always to see a new movie in one during the year-end holidays. Still unwilling to be in close quarters with the masses, this week I bought an Oppenheimer Blu-Ray package. Cost considerably less than two tickets to a 70mm-projecting venue. Watched it in our own comfortable chairs. Avoided the flicker of film projection. Had total control of the audio volume (although, in my opinion, music was too loud compared to dialog. Neither of us have any hearing impairments). Didn't suffer from the format chopping that most IMAX projection imposes; the full 2.20:1 aspect ratio was visible.
For anyone who's interested in all the factors and production trivia covered in this thread, the included "Special Features" disc would be beneficial. It's nearly as long as the three-hour feature disc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?