Oppenheimer Shot IMAX

[braxus]

I've seen the movie twice at the Langley IMAX theater here in BC. I might go a third time -maybe. No issues with projection the two times I went, but the people I sat next to in the second viewing, said the show they first went to, had a technical issue and it stopped the show. Came back up an hour later, and sound 15 minutes after that. Im lucky no issues when I went.

B&W grain was noticeable on the 5 perf shots. 15 perf looked pretty clean and grainless. I noticed a contrast difference between the 5 perf color and 15 perf shots. Contrast was way higher on the 5 perf and that is probably because of the extra contact printing they did with more generations compared to the straight 15 perf shots. Grain in the color was noticeable to me too on the 5 perf stuff. Anything IMAX was clean.

I really hope they can do more IMAX prints in the future, but Nolan is pretty much the only one doing it today. Im just glad my theater kept their IMAX film projector. Probably more trouble to remove it then leave it in there. I never once got a film strip sample when we got out of the show. Both times they said they ran out of them. I do see them on Facebook Marketplace selling for $120-200, which is quite a rip off considering they were free gifts. Gotta love the fast buck. I do have a frame of IMAX from 25 years ago, showing the shuttle bay area in space and Earth in the background. It is very close to 6x7.

 

[halfaman]

I saw it a couple of weeks ago in a digital projection. I noticed no grain or color grading issues.

 

[warden]

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

 

[cmacd123]

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.

 

[warden]

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.

I use hearing protection but that affects the sound quality. It’s silly honestly, and unnecessary. I noticed a few other people in the audience with their fingers in their ears.

 

[braxus]

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.

Actually 6x7 is 56mm x 70 is it not?

 

[Tom Taylor]

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,

Apparently, the sound quality varies from theatre to theatre. At the Esquire in Sacramento my experience was the same as Warden's regardless of whether it was sampled from front or rear seating. But at the Regal in Dublin it was perfect. Unless there was a problem with the speakers in Sacramento, this appears to be a simple problem of volume control.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Does anybody know what Nolan had the Double-X developed in? D-96?

 

[Rrrgcy]

No after-film souvenirs given in Fort Lauderdale. The sound was about a 9 of 10, pushed quite loud but not excruciating; the rumble of your inner organs and body when the bomb went off was certainly something (will be a lasting memory). The volume was probably necessary. We got in line 15 mins before show start so sat in top section of the bottom closest 1/4 to the front which is not ideal, had to concentrate and focus on the center of the screen to make it watchable which absolutely disturbed optimal visual enjoyment.

Definitely some ”grain-like“ sharp distinct speck mottling effect in some B&W scenes (first B&W part shown, to my recollection, I recall being distracted by this as the field to the right was quite empty of detail, a consistent grey, and you could see it well).

Very lush very detailed aesthetic but it also relied a little too much in many scenes with open focus to blur background (C. Nolan explained his preference for this in some preview). I found that sometimes a little too unnatural and distracting. I’d prefer more background detail in several certain captures.

 

[cmacd123]

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

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

Thank you Charles. I did read through that a while back, but could not find anything stating which developer was used. But you are probably correct in that D96 was used. Cheers!

 

[Tom Taylor]

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.

 

[blee1996]

Hi Tom, I can imagine that your fine photo of Torre del Paine NP projected in an IMAX fashion will look magnificent.

 

[mshchem]

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.

View attachment 347122​

Did anyone have commercial process and mounting available for 6x7? I've seen old Kodak processed Ektachrome in flimsy cardboard mounts. I have a Kindermann projector for 6x6 slides. Amazing how much better these look than 35mm. I would love to have a way to project 6x17 chromes. Wouldn't that be something

 

[blee1996]

You can probably use a large format enlarger, mounted horizontally, with proper glass carrier for your 6x17 slides.

 

[Tom Taylor]

As far as I am aware no commercial labs mounted 6x7 transparencies - you had to do it yourself. Gepe, Journal, and Blair were the only manufactures of 6x7 mounts that I am aware of. Gepe made both AN glass and glassless plastic mounts and Journal, I believe, only glassless. Blair made cardboard mounts in 6x7, 6x9, 4x5 and maybe 8x10 size. The 6x7 Blair was sold through Adorama which is where I ordered them from until they were discontinued. InkJet Arts in Salt Lake City was the Blair distributor and I stopped by their location while on a road trip and purchased the remaining inventory of 6x7, 6x9 and 4x5 mounts. I still have a few hundred remaining but the adhesive needs to be renewed. Cabin based the 67Z projector on the Gepe mount which fits perfectly. The Blair mount is slightly larger than the Gepe so it is necessary to fiddle with it when inserting to make it fit but it is made from good strong cardboard so it doesn't bend easily and wears well. Conveniently, there is a small "dimple" placed on one side enabling you to tell which side is the front side. Noblex made a 4x5 projector that B&H sold for $3,000. At the time I didn't have the $3K and when I did, they were discontinued. I looked around for a used one but only found one which was priced at $2K-which I had at the time, but it was located somewhere in Eastern Europe and paypal insurance back then wouldn't cover the purchase so I didn't pull the trigger.

Thomas

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I screwed up and ordered tickets in their regular IMAX laser rather than the film presentation. Anyone see the laser version and how is it?

 

[richyd]

Gross worldwide now over $900 million. If only Kodak got royalties. And thanks to Nolan and Kodak for generating the buzz around film cinematographic projection. I notice many new features have been shot using film, e.g. Scorsese's new film, but not so many have any projection print.

 

[Richard Man]

Just saw it on IMAX 70mm. I avoided all trailers prior and was amazed how smooth the skins look on youtube ;-)

 

[Agulliver]

I saw the regular IMAX showing, as I just didn't fancy travelling into London for the BFI IMAX in 30C heat...and there's two IMAX cinemas using digital projection much closer to where I live, which are accessible by air conditioned car

It did stand out as being visually and audibly stunning. I can't imagine this will be anything like as good on even a regular cinema screen letalone a TV, even a 72 inch TV. I do hope this increases awareness of film, with the social media posts about Kodak working on IMAX B&W film for the first time. It did look different to anything else I've seen recently. Even digitally projected.

 

[cmacd123]

looks like the October issue of American Cinematographer will have an article on the Movie

Oppenheimer Examined in October Issue of AC - The American Society of Cinematographers (en-US)

some of the bigger newsstands might be able to get you a copy.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

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.

 

[Kino]

I know the guy who churned-out a bajillion of those 70mm promotional film strips for this film.

Funny to see them selling for outrageous prices on Fleabay and other places.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Did you make up some popcorn?