70mm film has been around for over 50years. The movie "2001 A Space Odyssey, was shot on 70mm. IMAX uses 70mm sideways getting much more image on the film. 35mm movies were once projected onto 70 foot screens! Now movie theaters are just glorified living rooms with tiny screens. Film has a charm that can never be duplicated by video. Film has movement as it is passing thru the shutter making your eyes follow each frame rhis giving its warmth. Its grain is ever changing thus giving a softer look. Oh and if you think an IMAX projector is complicated, take a look at playing a 2" tape on a quad video tape machine!. Both mediums have good and bad points. Its a shame that film is going away with tons of jobs lost. Oh btw i am an emmy award editor on video. Have worked in video tape since its broadcast birth in 1955
The sweet spot between 35mm and IMAX 70mm is super 70mm film. It can take the convenience of the 35mm performance and create a massive image that can be projected up onto very large screen. WIth modern technology god knows what sorts of experiences could be achieved. Vistavision which was around since the 1950s used the process that IMAX used by turning film to run horizontally. People also confuse grain to be the same as resolution when in fact grain is like a texture to the image rather than clarity.
@@rty1955 yesss you’ve been around working on video tape since 1955 You’ve experienced the birth of some amazing technology I hope I can live this long 🥺
@@Nightshade1881 videotape machines back then were amazing devices having to capture about from 20hz to 5mhz analog signal on tape! Audio recording is a piece of cake compared to video. Not to mention the several electro-mechanical servo systems that are used on these machines. I now restore these machines to a working condition to playback tapes that are 60 yrs old. I wonder how many digital "standards" will be around for that long. I remember a videotape technician asking me if video would ever be capable of being recorded/stored/playback in a computer. Now look at todays technology, you can do all of that on the palm of your hand.
I think digital IMAX is a total rip-off. I been to some theaters where they do regular digital presentations on BIG screens and to me its no different than Digital IMAX which I do not want to pay the extra surcharge for when I want to see a certain film. Now, it was like "Hateful 8" where you were seeing the movie from an actual 70mm film print, I wouldn't mind paying extra for that experience even thought I lived thought seeing a number of movies in blown up 70mm in the 70's and 80's.
@@captaincinema5066 Liemax. That's pretty funny actually 🤣. I had the privilege of seeing a 70mm IMAX showing at the Cinesphere back in 1996. It was a school field trip. I'll never forget it.
@@cinemapigeon4898 Yes he will, but we need more movies released on this format every 12 to 18 months or better yet 6 to 12 months. Just not enough good movies made that are shot on film and are good enough to get the IMAX 15/70 treatment.
Nolan movies are playing in 70mm this and next month at ontario place!! I'm so excited, I bought tickets for all of them. I had the opportunity to see interstellar and the dark knight at the colosieum back when they came out, such an amazing experience. absolutely so psyched to see them again.
This was very informative. I really appreciate that. There's a spot down the street from me and all the sudden they started advertising the 70mm on their presentations. I didn't understand until now. Thank you.
The last IMAX 70mm movie I watched was Interstellar. That was my last greatest movie going experience ever other than Avengers Endgame (IMAX digital, but okay). I cannot explain how bummed I was because I could not watch TENET on an IMAX screen.
Wish I could like this video more than once. This guy really knows his stuff! IMAX film is equal to an 18k digital image and is truely an awesome experience to see. The lack of film in most theaters I feel is the reason ticket sales have declined. Digital projection & digital displays are so comon no one wants to spend big bucks to see a digital movie in the theater. On the other hand if a movie gets a film release its well worth going to see and experience and enjoy!
Only if its imax 15/70 film 35MM is not worth traveling for the picture is blurry 4K digital is good enough film is not coming back. I will travel for 70MM and 15/70 imax and Imax Laser its very good.
@@asificam1 Much has changed since I wrote that. Finding a theater that is open is a challenge, finding one showing film is impossible. And you are partly correct. They proceeve newer (digital) as better and are more intetested in what is showing then how its showing. Too many people are perfectly happy with a mid size screen, stereo sound and 2k projection. Each "upgrade" and new technology theaters install, all it does is drive up prices of the popcorn and Soda. Food prices people do care about and if theaters had kept their film projection systems and newer theaters stick to 2k or 4k projection systems all would be good. IMAX is pushing a platform and concept most don't care about. But for those who do care, 70mm IMAX film remain the best projection system. Digital looks different but that does not matter to most. But to some it does matter and the ticket sales for film engagements speak for the popularity of 70mm. Who the heck is going to go to a science museum to see the latest blockbuster movie?? Every 70mm film I have seen in the past 5 years, the lines are out the door for weeks. That is all the conformation I need to say film is still an attention getter.
i saw the original Rambo at a theater years ago, and heard it was filmed in 70mm, always thought they were referring to the focal length, but it was probably using this IMAX format, very educational upload here
Noah u totally should make a video bout developing films! the cost of getting them developed here in vancouver is unbelievable, i got my first roll developed and scanned in a local london drugs and it costed me 16 bucks. Back in Hong Kong it was only 4 dollars and the quality was wayyyyyyy better. I just don't wanna waste that much money and not getting the results i want.
Digital so-called 'Imax' is 'Lie-max'. It doesn't hold a candle to the horizontal 70mm film version. By the way, in the standard 70mm systems, 65mm film is used in the camera and 70mm prints are produced for projection. In the pre-digital age (from the mid-1950s, with 'Todd AO' format) the extra 5mm space was used to accommodate all the analogue magnetic soundtracks to create a form of surround sound.
I enjoyed your interest and information on large format film! To clear up the confusion of 65mm vs 70mm and why it is stated as both, here is the reason: all of the cameras use 65mm (wide) camera raw stock. The film prints are made on 70mm wide print stock. The additional 5mm width is a "hold-over" from the classic days of 70mm film projection where that additional width, which is outside of the sprocket holes, was used for the magnetic multi-channel soundtrack. That audio format has long since vanished, but that is why 65mm camera negative is printed onto 70mm print stock. So, 65mm and 70mm are the same thing really, because the image area is exactly the same.
We have at least four IMAX theatres in Houston that I'm aware of, and I've seen movies in all of them. I saw Gravity and Dunkirk at the one closest to my home, the Mars documentary at the one at the Natural Science museum, and another title at the one in Galveston that was so long ago, I don't even remember what it was. If it was shot in IMAX, and is something I'm really interested in, I always try to see it in IMAX.
Edwards IMAX Marq*E, where I saw a number of 15perf 70mm film projections going back to The Dark Knight, no longer shows IMAX movies on film, sadly. All digital nowadays, and I assume the same is probably true for the other locations.
5 років тому+7
I really dig your videos on analog. Now, just a tiny thing: 70mm film is not sometimes called 65mm. It's recorded in 65mm and then projected in 70mm. The additional 5mm is for sound.
Um that’s not true. They never put the sound on 70mm because there was no room. They played the sound on a separate format sometimes 35mm sometimes cd
4 роки тому+1
@@odiltm259 Hi there. You would be right, later on sound moved to sparate media formats but in the beginning they couldn't use CDs because they didn't exist. There were 4 magnetic strips containing 6 tracks of "Stereophonic" sound. www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/70mmtodd-r.gif You can read more at www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto4.htm
The top ones that people go for on a budget are Canon Scoopic’s, The Soviet krasnogorsk and of course Bolex’s. The bolex can get expensive and I don’t have personal experience with the others but the Krasnogorsk can be scored cheap and could be good for just experimenting and learning.
Does anyone know about film printing with IMAX? Regular 35mm went from contact printing to 4k digital scan and 4k digital print (roughly in the 90s I think). What kind of scanning and printing go into imax? Do the digital methods involved subtract resolution when compared to the potential of film to film contact printing?
I've had the same question for a while now. According to this video: ua-cam.com/video/tFGaxVejvys/v-deo.html I think they did an optical print ( NO digital intermediate or at least no digital file laser printed onto film ) of DUNKIRK ( IMAX 65 negatives -> IMAX 70mm release print - theoretically no loss in data or color + IMAX -> regular 70mm, IMAX -> 35mm then of course the digital DCPs and stuff as well. It seems like there are very very limited options for a optical ( photchemical ) 35mm print from 35mm negatives. But I read a paper about the ARRILASER 2 which stated that theoretically, scanning at 4K or 6K 10 bit or 12 bit then printing 4K 10 bit with ARRILASER 2, you should not be able to see the difference. I'd love to see that in person, it's a waiting game rn. For TENET, because of the time crunch, I don't think they did an optical print. I believe they scanned it at 8K, and printed the few IMAX 70 and reg 70 prints with FOTOKEM's 8K Celco CRT printer. This instagram post by IMAX kinda breaks down their process: instagram.com/p/CEuU9O7nRUl/ I'm waiting for a more in depth breakdown or interview with the editors. In a film to DI to digital -> film print, as long as the film is scanned at the max resolution it can be scanned at, and the DI is exported as an uncompressed or minimally compressed 4K or 8K video, I think the lost data will be unnoticeable. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. I have been researching everything 16mm, 35mm, 65mm and IMAX for over a year now.
Thanks for that, I'll have to study it a bit more. The 8k is disappointing (a bit like the majority of new records being pressed from digital audio), but the idea of high quality prints may just be the element that saves theatres. What killed off independent cinemas was the switch to digital projectors: distribution is very cheap (hence the industry forcing it ), but digital projectors are at least 100 grand, they're expensive to fix when they go wrong (you may have to fly someone in from interstate), and every few years you're forced to upgrade to new ones as the system changes. Having a film print may be around $800 compared to the $20 or so of digital, but 35mm projectors are a much more realistic prospect for a small business. I'm hoping the option to also get a film print for every movie gets put on the table, combined with drive-in cinemas opening back up again in response to covid
@@kenknight5983 Yeah, I wish the forced switch to digital didn't happen. Problem is a digital copy of a movie is really really cheap compared to the 800-1000 price that a theater would pay to get a print. Thankfully, a more and more movies ( at least the ones released by Warner Bros and Paramount ) ARE releasing 35mm, 70mm and IMAX 70 film prints. Wonder Woman 1984, TENET of course, Zack Snyder's Justice League, A Quiet Place 2, Death on the Nile gets reg 70mm release, DUNE gets a IMAX 70 blow up. I have a complete list on IMDB: www.imdb.com/list/ls093236195 ( There is at least 1 studio in America that can record music full analog, I would love to hear music recorded and play in the analog format )
Hi , I just discovered your channel the other night , after looking for info on a Bolex I was given . Although I had shot 8mm and Super 8 many years ago , for the past 30+ years I have worked with all the analogue video formats from Lo Ban Umatic up to Beta SP , then Digi Beta to XDCAM HD , so getting back into film is a walk down memory lane for me . Enough preamble - I really enjoyed your video on IMAX , but , it occurs to me , if you haven't already done it , it would be good for you to do a walk through the various cine film formats that have existed down the years - from 16mm , 35mm , Academy Ratio , the various widescreen formats that competed in the 1950's - Cinemascope ( talking about anamorphic lenses ) , Vistavision ( which was a sort of 35mm version of IMAX , with the film running sideways , Cinerama , with three synchronised 35mm projectors filling a wide , curved screen ; maybe touching on audio as well , from mono , through stereo , sennsurround , Dolby surround and Dolby Digital ? Maybe you've already done this and I just haven't found it yet , but I'm sure it would interest some others on here .
Now, Ferguson, Kroitor, Kerr, and Shaw were not the first to use a horizontal film orientation. The engineers at Paramount did it back in 1954 with VistaVision. VistaVision became obsolete as finer grained film stock came out and was retired after seven years. Lucasfilm picked up a bunch of the VistaVision equipment and reworked it to do the special effects on the first three Star Wars films.
I saw Apollo 11 at the Science Museum IMAX in London. Not shot on IMAX obviously since it was original Apollo programme footage, but it still looked fantastic. I know a lot of it was shot on Camera 65, I assume that was running vertically.
65mm film can be really impressive and not that far of the size of IMAX 70mm in theaters. I suspect that they could make the screen much larger for IMAX 70mm than traditional 65mm and never got near its true potential for size.
@@bighands69 65mm film used for Apollo has the film running vertically, with the frames across the width of the film. IMAX 70mm has the film running horizontally, with the frames along the length of the film. That gives each IMAX frame around 4 times the negative area compared to the Apollo 65mm film.
Noah, I remember the showings of Todd-A-O productions. The latest one is Dunkirk. Everything was 'on camera' special effects. No CGI. Amazing! I don't know if you ever used a Bolex S155 super 8 camera. The accessory to place slides in front of the lens to show different effects was amazing.
Wow loved this explanation! Didn't know that so many of those movies were in film! First man was great and I thought it might have bee shot in film. But the others I didn't know😊
A good bit of information to know/add: 616/116 film (introduced by Kodak in 1932), is essentially 70mm/IMAX roll film capable of taking eight 2.5" × 4.25" photos (was originally set for 6 shots, but was bumped up to 8 early on) for various Kodak 616/116 folding cameras & box cameras.
I saw Dunkirk on the huge 5 story iMax theater in Manhattan. It was fantastic. The regular 70mm scenes in the film almost liked like 35mm in comparison to the super high resolution iMax70mm. I also got to see Hateful 8 at Village East Cinema projected in 70mm - another great cinema experiences.
15 perf 65mm is around 18k when captured in the camera and around 12k when printed. We currently don't have the technology to capture or present digital files on a screen at anything over 8k.
Hey bud. Could you post a video talking about the resolution that can be achieved by shooting on IMAX 70mm. Is it 18k really ? Or is the resolution actually 12k in reality? Loved your video by the way and I already subscribed to your channel. Looking forward to watch more.
Kodak 5203 50D stock is around 18k when being shot with 15 perf IMAX cameras. The prints are around 12k because you lose quite a bit of quality during the printing process sadly.
@@maxmeijer1567 Yeah, but that includes the Alexa IMAX footage, which is a digital format. And although I couldn't find it out exactly, I would assume at least half of the IMAX footage is of the digital kind.
Last Jedi had a few 15 perf 65mm IMAX scenes, but not many. The film was mostly shot with Anamorphic 4 perf 35mm cameras and Arri Alexa digital cameras. The filmmakers decided to finish the film in a fixed wide screen aspect ratio due to cost. It costs a lot more money to do effects in a much larger 1.45:1 aspect ratio of native IMAX. Plus, the cost of even doing different versions, makes no sense. Finally, they were very delayed on finishing the film, so ramping up different versions didn't seem logical. There was one finished version of the film, it was recorded back to IMAX 15 perf internegative stock and prints were struck from that. I'm unaware of any other prints made of it.
I think you made a mistake when you said IMAX 70 mm is wider, it sure is compared to 35 mm. However, Ultra Panavision 70 is the widest while IMAX 70 is the tallest.
i still think 4k laser IMAX can be a blessing if its the only thing you have, in Chile we only have 1 IMAX screen, and thats all we are going to get, i would LOOVE to get to see 70mm prints, but i guess i`ll never get the chance
Our old iMax theatre was pulled down last year and I only just found out about it!! Show's you how long it's been since I was last in the centre of town!!! :) :P It ran between 1988 and 2012, so it had a bit of a run, I suppose.
Imax 70mm film has a resolution of 18k but the detail of the image is only 12k because the remaining 6k resolution of the image is film grain, I've always wonder why aren't there movies shot in 8k then presented in 70mm film? there aren't digital 8k projectors yet so the resolution of an 8k movie printed on 70mm film can still benefit from it.
Sorry but that is just nonsense. The 18k is what you see on screen and it is only an equivalent of what digital pixelation would need need to try and achieve that look. Film does not actually have pixels so it cannot really be compared to digital. Those figures quoted by IMAX originally were only estimations of the actual film stock not the actual image on the screen. 8k digital projection will be similar to that of 35mm projection on the screen at current cinema sizes. Is genuine 8K projection even possible with current engineering.
I love these reviews/homages on things that really worth having experienced even from a curiosity/educational standpoint. There are a couple of things though that I haven't understood, I remember searching them in the past but they are still unclear to me. So, 70mm film is a different process than the IMAX? As you mentioned IMAX (if I understood correctly) is the same 70mm film with the only difference being that it is run through the camera horizontally, allowing for a wider frame to be captured. So are productions still using 70mm film (the one run vertically) and others IMAX? And is there a considerable difference between 70mm and IMAX Also, on the comparison of the two prints, Harry Potter was shot on 35mm and then printed on IMAX in order to be played on IMAX theatres right? What advantage does that give to a 35mm print? A blown up/wider version of it? (On a side note, viewing slide film or print film in this case on a light table is probably one of most satisfying/enjoyable experiences you can have! These prints look beautiful, how did you get hold of them?) Sorry for the long reply! Keep up the nice videos!
So some movies shoot certain sequences IMAX, but typically not the whole movie because it’s expensive. 70mm run vertically can be done for entire movies, but does have a smaller frame then IMAX 70. For example Hateful Eight was shot entirely on 70mm run vertically but had no IMAX 70mm in it. Blowing 35mm up to IMAX could be done for a few reasons, but largely to be able to release on IMAX screens for a premium ticket price, also audio can really benefit from IMAX theatres because they are setup differently on that side as well. I hope this answered some of your questions! As for the IMAX frames I had worked at a lab that had a random small roll of some Harry Potter IMAX cells and we could take a few if we wanted!
So it has some advantages but it is also a big marketing thing. Similar to 3D captured movies and 3D converted. Haven't seen any movie shot and projected in IMAX, but now that I moved in London I think I will have an opportunity at some point! Thanks for the reply!
@@AnalogResurgence Great video! One thing I'm not clear on...so does shooting IMAX 65mm use different stock than regular 65mm? When Christopher Nolan is shooting the IMAX portions in Dunkirk is he still using the same Kodak stocks as the 65mm portions? I always assumed it was the way the IMAX cameras were capturing the image, but never understood how exactly one would capture a 15-perf image vs a 5-perf image if it was on the same exact stock...
@@KayWildcat It is the same film! IMAX cameras shoot the film horizontally to get a frame that is 15-perf's long and non-IMAX cameras shooting 65 run the film vertically to get a frame that is 5-perfs tall!
Hello sir Do you know how much it takes(price)to start a new IMAX 70mm theatres in a country through real estate or by via any other field to start a whole new IMAX theatres
I find that 4k digital stretched out on an IMAX screen is closer to 720p on my home TV in terms of resolution (pixels per degree field of view.) A digital IMAX comparable to and worthy of the name of the format needs to be more like 16k. But I guess the costs of that hasn't yet intersected with the reality of making profitable movie theaters.
I think you would need to sit back further from the screen so as to not see the pixels but the problem with that is the screen would start to look smaller.
Am I correct in understanding that a IMAX Laser is a technology that replaces the light source in a projector? If so, does this technology work for both film and digital projectors? Actually I recently watched the film Dune on IMAX digital (not Laser). I must say that pixels are very visible in small and contrasting details. Especially on the titles. I really didn't like it. I mean, at all, this sense of digital. It is a pity that the film 🎞 is leaving our everyday life.
I had the same experience with IMAX digital in that I can see the pixels but I also get that with pretty much all digital projection in cinemas. Using a laser light source with film projection would be a really interesting approach. I wonder as well can they create a form of digital film projection were a solid image like a film is presented in front of the light source so as to project a film like picture on screen.
I had really wanted to go, but couldn’t make it. The year before there was an Art Event there and I saw some other 70mm stuff that was amazing. Shots of huge oil well fires that a crew were trying to put out. I got to check out the projector as well when they had it switched over for film
Your videos are cool but I can't stand the low frequency rumble that goes on while you talk. Can't tell if it's intentional or you have a furnace going or washer/dryer. I suggest cutting low end for the people who watch/listen on a full range system.
Im mixed on digatal IMAX the only thing it has going for it is the sound and the picture is a little bit bigger but if see a film that was not made for imax it looks bad.
It makes no sense to me why IMAX, the largest film format ever made, would go with the boxy 4:3 ratio instead of the 1:85:1 ratio. Also, if they simply made the perforations larger, they wouldn't need to have so many.
Larger perforations/less perforations would greatly reduce the amount of stability that the film would have when moving through the camera. Due to its size and the speed at which it moves, film needs those perforations for the camera to transport it steadily through the camera for consistent spacing and registration.
@@ArnoldTohtFan IMAX prefer to go with height in their image. I personally prefer widescreen in a cinema and think that anamorphic for movies in 35mm and 70mm is beautiful. In saying all of that I have seen the IMAX in Sydney which was 15/70mm IMAX and was the largest cinema screen in the world and Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure looked stunning on it and no other experience in cinema has been like that for me.
It's very difficult to find movie theaters that project true 70mm film anymore. Most have been converted to digital because they are cheaper and easier to maintain. Do not be fooled! Digital IMAX projects in 2K while real 70mm IMAX is equivalent to 12K and are projected on much larger, curved screens!
Sadly it all comes down to money. Film is expensive, and theaters buying the movies on film is expensive compared to just a file on a hard drive.... We the consumer did this unintentionally with streaming and obsessing over 4k.
I've seen ONE ho-hum film in IMAX 3D with the "five-story-high-screen" and came away...unimpressed. (It was "Battle Los Angeles," where a USMC detachment does the "Star Wars Imperial Stomtroopers" thing when Aliens Attack!) "Wasted potential" is what comes to mind. Cinerama's "How The West Was Won" did it MUCH better in 2D, which was merely amazing at the time.
I think movie theater chains broke the projectionist union before the switch to digital? Anyway, you need to pay skilled people to run analogue protectors. Switch to digital and you just get someone from concessions to flick on the movie. Pretty sad.
I do not think the theaters were at fault. I suspect that it was a top to bottom approach and that the distribution system prefered digital as it was much cheaper but it now has created a problem that people are not going to the cinema due to the experience not being that impressive.
Imax is the only reason that film can still be used, but there are already some large sensor Arri cameras that might be better and if not, they will be soon. Film should die forever then, analogue is the past and should die like analogue crt tvs and analogue modems and many other crap
I believe I saw a 70mm showing of interstellar- without even knowing what that meant at the time- but my god it blew me away
Yes, back then I was angry because it wasn't in 3D, but that movie me away unlike any other. Now I'm glad I got to watch it in IMAX.
I had the same feeling of seeing something entirely different when I watched Batman, Dark Knight, not knowing it was iMax.
Great video man, I wish IMAX would have kept doing 70mm as well. Such a great experience.
IMAX does 15/70 film once a year you have to keep your eyes open for it .IMax 15/70 film showing usely happen in big cities you will have to travel.
I saw Interstellar and Dunkirk in legit IMAX theaters and the experience was mind blowing.
Got my ticket to watch TENET at the Cinesphere on opening day. Let's go!!!
70mm film has been around for over 50years. The movie "2001 A Space Odyssey, was shot on 70mm. IMAX uses 70mm sideways getting much more image on the film. 35mm movies were once projected onto 70 foot screens! Now movie theaters are just glorified living rooms with tiny screens. Film has a charm that can never be duplicated by video. Film has movement as it is passing thru the shutter making your eyes follow each frame rhis giving its warmth. Its grain is ever changing thus giving a softer look. Oh and if you think an IMAX projector is complicated, take a look at playing a 2" tape on a quad video tape machine!. Both mediums have good and bad points. Its a shame that film is going away with tons of jobs lost.
Oh btw i am an emmy award editor on video. Have worked in video tape since its broadcast birth in 1955
The sweet spot between 35mm and IMAX 70mm is super 70mm film. It can take the convenience of the 35mm performance and create a massive image that can be projected up onto very large screen.
WIth modern technology god knows what sorts of experiences could be achieved. Vistavision which was around since the 1950s used the process that IMAX used by turning film to run horizontally.
People also confuse grain to be the same as resolution when in fact grain is like a texture to the image rather than clarity.
Dude how old are you 😳
@@Nightshade1881 does it matter?
@@rty1955 yesss you’ve been around working on video tape since 1955
You’ve experienced the birth of some amazing technology
I hope I can live this long 🥺
@@Nightshade1881 videotape machines back then were amazing devices having to capture about from 20hz to 5mhz analog signal on tape! Audio recording is a piece of cake compared to video. Not to mention the several electro-mechanical servo systems that are used on these machines.
I now restore these machines to a working condition to playback tapes that are 60 yrs old. I wonder how many digital "standards" will be around for that long.
I remember a videotape technician asking me if video would ever be capable of being recorded/stored/playback in a computer. Now look at todays technology, you can do all of that on the palm of your hand.
I think digital IMAX is a total rip-off. I been to some theaters where they do regular digital presentations on BIG screens and to me its no different than Digital IMAX which I do not want to pay the extra surcharge for when I want to see a certain film. Now, it was like "Hateful 8" where you were seeing the movie from an actual 70mm film print, I wouldn't mind paying extra for that experience even thought I lived thought seeing a number of movies in blown up 70mm in the 70's and 80's.
You are soooo right. That is why in the industry, we call it "LieMax."
@@captaincinema5066 Liemax. That's pretty funny actually 🤣. I had the privilege of seeing a 70mm IMAX showing at the Cinesphere back in 1996. It was a school field trip. I'll never forget it.
@@captaincinema5066not even IMAX with Laser? It’s a step in the right direction.
70mm movies are totally awesome. We need more movies released on 70mm and more theaters with 70mm projectors, IMAX 70 Prefered!
Christopher Nolan will give you them every 2-3 years.
@@cinemapigeon4898 Yes he will, but we need more movies released on this format every 12 to 18 months or better yet 6 to 12 months. Just not enough good movies made that are shot on film and are good enough to get the IMAX 15/70 treatment.
@@andrewbarnum5040not enough movies worth being filmed on 70mm tbh-lotta trash out there
Nolan movies are playing in 70mm this and next month at ontario place!! I'm so excited, I bought tickets for all of them. I had the opportunity to see interstellar and the dark knight at the colosieum back when they came out, such an amazing experience. absolutely so psyched to see them again.
The IMAX theater at the Pink Palace Museum in Memphis, TN was my first experience with the format. Awe inspiring
This was very informative. I really appreciate that. There's a spot down the street from me and all the sudden they started advertising the 70mm on their presentations. I didn't understand until now. Thank you.
The last IMAX 70mm movie I watched was Interstellar. That was my last greatest movie going experience ever other than Avengers Endgame (IMAX digital, but okay).
I cannot explain how bummed I was because I could not watch TENET on an IMAX screen.
Your enthusiasm for all formats of photographic analog is always a blast! Cheers Chum!
The Cinesphere is awesome! Saw 2001 there last summer
Lucky
Wish I could like this video more than once. This guy really knows his stuff! IMAX film is equal to an 18k digital image and is truely an awesome experience to see. The lack of film in most theaters I feel is the reason ticket sales have declined. Digital projection & digital displays are so comon no one wants to spend big bucks to see a digital movie in the theater. On the other hand if a movie gets a film release its well worth going to see and experience and enjoy!
Only if its imax 15/70 film 35MM is not worth traveling for the picture is blurry 4K digital is good enough film is not coming back. I will travel for 70MM and 15/70 imax and Imax Laser its very good.
@@RKoen2006 punctuation is more important than you think
@@TekExplorer Some people don't care you are not the police i am not in high school and this is not for work.
@@asificam1 Much has changed since I wrote that. Finding a theater that is open is a challenge, finding one showing film is impossible.
And you are partly correct. They proceeve newer (digital) as better and are more intetested in what is showing then how its showing. Too many people are perfectly happy with a mid size screen, stereo sound and 2k projection. Each "upgrade" and new technology theaters install, all it does is drive up prices of the popcorn and Soda. Food prices people do care about and if theaters had kept their film projection systems and newer theaters stick to 2k or 4k projection systems all would be good.
IMAX is pushing a platform and concept most don't care about. But for those who do care, 70mm IMAX film remain the best projection system. Digital looks different but that does not matter to most. But to some it does matter and the ticket sales for film engagements speak for the popularity of 70mm. Who the heck is going to go to a science museum to see the latest blockbuster movie?? Every 70mm film I have seen in the past 5 years, the lines are out the door for weeks. That is all the conformation I need to say film is still an attention getter.
i saw the original Rambo at a theater years ago, and heard it was filmed in 70mm, always thought they were referring to the focal length, but it was probably using this IMAX format, very educational upload here
your enthusiasasm in infectious! keep 'em coming! kind regards Keith xxx
Keep imax 70mm film alive please 2021.
Here in Melbourne , Australia our imax does both digital and film movies. The 1570 projector was one of the only one asked to be reinstalled.
This channel needs more love.
The latest version of "Murder on the Orient Express" was filmed in 70mm.
Damnit, I thought it was shot on the Alexa 65, I'd have gone to see it in the cinema if I knew if was shot on 65mm film.
@@CraigBickerstaff you are right it was shot in Arri Alexa 65 so you didn't miss much
Love this, keep them videos coming . Great job and love for the medium.
Noah u totally should make a video bout developing films!
the cost of getting them developed here in vancouver is unbelievable, i got my first roll developed and scanned in a local london drugs and it costed me 16 bucks. Back in Hong Kong it was only 4 dollars and the quality was wayyyyyyy better. I just don't wanna waste that much money and not getting the results i want.
I definitely want to in the future! Have all this stuff in mind about developing to focus on
Going to see Tenet at the cinesphere next week! So hyped.
I learned more watching this than the entire day at school!
honestly my favourite channel on youtube
Really cool video ! I learned so much things about IMAX. Amazing channel !
Excellent video 😊!
Digital so-called 'Imax' is 'Lie-max'. It doesn't hold a candle to the horizontal 70mm film version. By the way, in the standard 70mm systems, 65mm film is used in the camera and 70mm prints are produced for projection. In the pre-digital age (from the mid-1950s, with 'Todd AO' format) the extra 5mm space was used to accommodate all the analogue magnetic soundtracks to create a form of surround sound.
I enjoyed your interest and information on large format film! To clear up the confusion of 65mm vs 70mm and why it is stated as both, here is the reason: all of the cameras use 65mm (wide) camera raw stock. The film prints are made on 70mm wide print stock. The additional 5mm width is a "hold-over" from the classic days of 70mm film projection where that additional width, which is outside of the sprocket holes, was used for the magnetic multi-channel soundtrack. That audio format has long since vanished, but that is why 65mm camera negative is printed onto 70mm print stock. So, 65mm and 70mm are the same thing really, because the image area is exactly the same.
We have at least four IMAX theatres in Houston that I'm aware of, and I've seen movies in all of them. I saw Gravity and Dunkirk at the one closest to my home, the Mars documentary at the one at the Natural Science museum, and another title at the one in Galveston that was so long ago, I don't even remember what it was. If it was shot in IMAX, and is something I'm really interested in, I always try to see it in IMAX.
Edwards IMAX Marq*E, where I saw a number of 15perf 70mm film projections going back to The Dark Knight, no longer shows IMAX movies on film, sadly. All digital nowadays, and I assume the same is probably true for the other locations.
I really dig your videos on analog. Now, just a tiny thing: 70mm film is not sometimes called 65mm. It's recorded in 65mm and then projected in 70mm. The additional 5mm is for sound.
Um that’s not true. They never put the sound on 70mm because there was no room. They played the sound on a separate format sometimes 35mm sometimes cd
@@odiltm259 Hi there. You would be right, later on sound moved to sparate media formats but in the beginning they couldn't use CDs because they didn't exist. There were 4 magnetic strips containing 6 tracks of "Stereophonic" sound.
www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/70mmtodd-r.gif
You can read more at www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto4.htm
I liked the video before I even started watching
Hey love the channel keep it up!
Question, I’m looking to buy an affordable Super 16mm Film Camera, what would it be a great top 3 go to? Thank you!
The top ones that people go for on a budget are Canon Scoopic’s, The Soviet krasnogorsk and of course Bolex’s. The bolex can get expensive and I don’t have personal experience with the others but the Krasnogorsk can be scored cheap and could be good for just experimenting and learning.
Does anyone know about film printing with IMAX? Regular 35mm went from contact printing to 4k digital scan and 4k digital print (roughly in the 90s I think). What kind of scanning and printing go into imax? Do the digital methods involved subtract resolution when compared to the potential of film to film contact printing?
I've had the same question for a while now. According to this video: ua-cam.com/video/tFGaxVejvys/v-deo.html I think they did an optical print ( NO digital intermediate or at least no digital file laser printed onto film ) of DUNKIRK ( IMAX 65 negatives -> IMAX 70mm release print - theoretically no loss in data or color + IMAX -> regular 70mm, IMAX -> 35mm then of course the digital DCPs and stuff as well.
It seems like there are very very limited options for a optical ( photchemical ) 35mm print from 35mm negatives. But I read a paper about the ARRILASER 2 which stated that theoretically, scanning at 4K or 6K 10 bit or 12 bit then printing 4K 10 bit with ARRILASER 2, you should not be able to see the difference. I'd love to see that in person, it's a waiting game rn.
For TENET, because of the time crunch, I don't think they did an optical print. I believe they scanned it at 8K, and printed the few IMAX 70 and reg 70 prints with FOTOKEM's 8K Celco CRT printer.
This instagram post by IMAX kinda breaks down their process: instagram.com/p/CEuU9O7nRUl/
I'm waiting for a more in depth breakdown or interview with the editors.
In a film to DI to digital -> film print, as long as the film is scanned at the max resolution it can be scanned at, and the DI is exported as an uncompressed or minimally compressed 4K or 8K video, I think the lost data will be unnoticeable.
If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. I have been researching everything 16mm, 35mm, 65mm and IMAX for over a year now.
Thanks for that, I'll have to study it a bit more. The 8k is disappointing (a bit like the majority of new records being pressed from digital audio), but the idea of high quality prints may just be the element that saves theatres. What killed off independent cinemas was the switch to digital projectors: distribution is very cheap (hence the industry forcing it ), but digital projectors are at least 100 grand, they're expensive to fix when they go wrong (you may have to fly someone in from interstate), and every few years you're forced to upgrade to new ones as the system changes. Having a film print may be around $800 compared to the $20 or so of digital, but 35mm projectors are a much more realistic prospect for a small business. I'm hoping the option to also get a film print for every movie gets put on the table, combined with drive-in cinemas opening back up again in response to covid
@@kenknight5983 Yeah, I wish the forced switch to digital didn't happen. Problem is a digital copy of a movie is really really cheap compared to the 800-1000 price that a theater would pay to get a print.
Thankfully, a more and more movies ( at least the ones released by Warner Bros and Paramount ) ARE releasing 35mm, 70mm and IMAX 70 film prints.
Wonder Woman 1984, TENET of course, Zack Snyder's Justice League, A Quiet Place 2, Death on the Nile gets reg 70mm release, DUNE gets a IMAX 70 blow up. I have a complete list on IMDB: www.imdb.com/list/ls093236195
( There is at least 1 studio in America that can record music full analog, I would love to hear music recorded and play in the analog format )
the questions you answer in an entertaining way, questions I;ve had for months
Hi , I just discovered your channel the other night , after looking for info on a Bolex I was given . Although I had shot 8mm and Super 8 many years ago , for the past 30+ years I have worked with all the analogue video formats from Lo Ban Umatic up to Beta SP , then Digi Beta to XDCAM HD , so getting back into film is a walk down memory lane for me .
Enough preamble - I really enjoyed your video on IMAX , but , it occurs to me , if you haven't already done it , it would be good for you to do a walk through the various cine film formats that have existed down the years - from 16mm , 35mm , Academy Ratio , the various widescreen formats that competed in the 1950's - Cinemascope ( talking about anamorphic lenses ) , Vistavision ( which was a sort of 35mm version of IMAX , with the film running sideways , Cinerama , with three synchronised 35mm projectors filling a wide , curved screen ; maybe touching on audio as well , from mono , through stereo , sennsurround , Dolby surround and Dolby Digital ?
Maybe you've already done this and I just haven't found it yet , but I'm sure it would interest some others on here .
Now, Ferguson, Kroitor, Kerr, and Shaw were not the first to use a horizontal film orientation. The engineers at Paramount did it back in 1954 with VistaVision. VistaVision became obsolete as finer grained film stock came out and was retired after seven years. Lucasfilm picked up a bunch of the VistaVision equipment and reworked it to do the special effects on the first three Star Wars films.
I saw Apollo 11 at the Science Museum IMAX in London. Not shot on IMAX obviously since it was original Apollo programme footage, but it still looked fantastic. I know a lot of it was shot on Camera 65, I assume that was running vertically.
65mm film can be really impressive and not that far of the size of IMAX 70mm in theaters. I suspect that they could make the screen much larger for IMAX 70mm than traditional 65mm and never got near its true potential for size.
@@bighands69 65mm film used for Apollo has the film running vertically, with the frames across the width of the film. IMAX 70mm has the film running horizontally, with the frames along the length of the film. That gives each IMAX frame around 4 times the negative area compared to the Apollo 65mm film.
Noah, I remember the showings of Todd-A-O productions. The latest one is Dunkirk. Everything was 'on camera' special effects. No CGI. Amazing! I don't know if you ever used a Bolex S155 super 8 camera. The accessory to place slides in front of the lens to show different effects was amazing.
Saw Interstellar in 70mm and I've been chasing that high ever since.
Wow loved this explanation! Didn't know that so many of those movies were in film! First man was great and I thought it might have bee shot in film. But the others I didn't know😊
Great video man!!
A good bit of information to know/add: 616/116 film (introduced by Kodak in 1932), is essentially 70mm/IMAX roll film capable of taking eight 2.5" × 4.25" photos (was originally set for 6 shots, but was bumped up to 8 early on) for various Kodak 616/116 folding cameras & box cameras.
I saw Dunkirk on the huge 5 story iMax theater in Manhattan. It was fantastic. The regular 70mm scenes in the film almost liked like 35mm in comparison to the super high resolution iMax70mm. I also got to see Hateful 8 at Village East Cinema projected in 70mm - another great cinema experiences.
Great video man! Going to see my first true IMAX 70mm experience in London this year for the upcoming movie TENET. I'm excited!
Nice explanation man. Loved it.
Another great video!!!
4K is not just “a bit” of a step down.
It’s a huge step down!
4K is 8 megapixels.
IMAX film is several hundred megapixels.
15 perf 65mm is around 18k when captured in the camera and around 12k when printed. We currently don't have the technology to capture or present digital files on a screen at anything over 8k.
216 Megapixels according to IMAX instagram
Could you maybe do a video going more into detail on the traditional 65-70mm film format and cameras?
Hey bud. Could you post a video talking about the resolution that can be achieved by shooting on IMAX 70mm. Is it 18k really ? Or is the resolution actually 12k in reality?
Loved your video by the way and I already subscribed to your channel. Looking forward to watch more.
Kodak 5203 50D stock is around 18k when being shot with 15 perf IMAX cameras. The prints are around 12k because you lose quite a bit of quality during the printing process sadly.
You need more subscribers!!!
Star Wars The Last Jedi was shot on IMAX 70mm, but projected in the standard 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Also at the IMAX screenings. So disappointing.
Most scenes weren't shot in IMAX anyway.
@@janludwig7286 Look at the wikipedia of IMAX, 40 minutes of the film was shot with IMAX cameras.
@@maxmeijer1567 Yeah, but that includes the Alexa IMAX footage, which is a digital format. And although I couldn't find it out exactly, I would assume at least half of the IMAX footage is of the digital kind.
Maybe they should have spent more money in the plot department instead.
Last Jedi had a few 15 perf 65mm IMAX scenes, but not many. The film was mostly shot with Anamorphic 4 perf 35mm cameras and Arri Alexa digital cameras. The filmmakers decided to finish the film in a fixed wide screen aspect ratio due to cost. It costs a lot more money to do effects in a much larger 1.45:1 aspect ratio of native IMAX. Plus, the cost of even doing different versions, makes no sense. Finally, they were very delayed on finishing the film, so ramping up different versions didn't seem logical. There was one finished version of the film, it was recorded back to IMAX 15 perf internegative stock and prints were struck from that. I'm unaware of any other prints made of it.
Great video!
Now we have LIEMAX. I grew up near an Omnimax setup. It was gorgeous.
I think you made a mistake when you said IMAX 70 mm is wider, it sure is compared to 35 mm. However, Ultra Panavision 70 is the widest while IMAX 70 is the tallest.
Film is not dead. Big film is the best.
i still think 4k laser IMAX can be a blessing if its the only thing you have, in Chile we only have 1 IMAX screen, and thats all we are going to get, i would LOOVE to get to see 70mm prints, but i guess i`ll never get the chance
En Argentina pasa lo mismo, sería genial que se invierta en ese tipo de protección en 70mm en los cines IMAX de acá, pero dudo que vaya a pasar.
Our old iMax theatre was pulled down last year and I only just found out about it!! Show's you how long it's been since I was last in the centre of town!!! :) :P It ran between 1988 and 2012, so it had a bit of a run, I suppose.
Imax 70mm film has a resolution of 18k but the detail of the image is only 12k because the remaining 6k resolution of the image is film grain, I've always wonder why aren't there movies shot in 8k then presented in 70mm film? there aren't digital 8k projectors yet so the resolution of an 8k movie printed on 70mm film can still benefit from it.
Sorry but that is just nonsense.
The 18k is what you see on screen and it is only an equivalent of what digital pixelation would need need to try and achieve that look.
Film does not actually have pixels so it cannot really be compared to digital. Those figures quoted by IMAX originally were only estimations of the actual film stock not the actual image on the screen.
8k digital projection will be similar to that of 35mm projection on the screen at current cinema sizes. Is genuine 8K projection even possible with current engineering.
@@bighands69 youstupid, 35 mm = 8k??????? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 max 4k
thanks for another great video.....
I watched imax 70mm pure imax its amazing truely one of its kind . Sadly thats the last movie before they switched to digital
I love these reviews/homages on things that really worth having experienced even from a curiosity/educational standpoint. There are a couple of things though that I haven't understood, I remember searching them in the past but they are still unclear to me. So, 70mm film is a different process than the IMAX? As you mentioned IMAX (if I understood correctly) is the same 70mm film with the only difference being that it is run through the camera horizontally, allowing for a wider frame to be captured. So are productions still using 70mm film (the one run vertically) and others IMAX? And is there a considerable difference between 70mm and IMAX
Also, on the comparison of the two prints, Harry Potter was shot on 35mm and then printed on IMAX in order to be played on IMAX theatres right? What advantage does that give to a 35mm print? A blown up/wider version of it? (On a side note, viewing slide film or print film in this case on a light table is probably one of most satisfying/enjoyable experiences you can have! These prints look beautiful, how did you get hold of them?)
Sorry for the long reply! Keep up the nice videos!
So some movies shoot certain sequences IMAX, but typically not the whole movie because it’s expensive. 70mm run vertically can be done for entire movies, but does have a smaller frame then IMAX 70. For example Hateful Eight was shot entirely on 70mm run vertically but had no IMAX 70mm in it. Blowing 35mm up to IMAX could be done for a few reasons, but largely to be able to release on IMAX screens for a premium ticket price, also audio can really benefit from IMAX theatres because they are setup differently on that side as well. I hope this answered some of your questions! As for the IMAX frames I had worked at a lab that had a random small roll of some Harry Potter IMAX cells and we could take a few if we wanted!
So it has some advantages but it is also a big marketing thing. Similar to 3D captured movies and 3D converted. Haven't seen any movie shot and projected in IMAX, but now that I moved in London I think I will have an opportunity at some point! Thanks for the reply!
@@AnalogResurgence Great video! One thing I'm not clear on...so does shooting IMAX 65mm use different stock than regular 65mm? When Christopher Nolan is shooting the IMAX portions in Dunkirk is he still using the same Kodak stocks as the 65mm portions? I always assumed it was the way the IMAX cameras were capturing the image, but never understood how exactly one would capture a 15-perf image vs a 5-perf image if it was on the same exact stock...
@@KayWildcat It is the same film! IMAX cameras shoot the film horizontally to get a frame that is 15-perf's long and non-IMAX cameras shooting 65 run the film vertically to get a frame that is 5-perfs tall!
Hello sir
Do you know how much it takes(price)to start a new IMAX 70mm theatres in a country through real estate or by via any other field to start a whole new IMAX theatres
I find that 4k digital stretched out on an IMAX screen is closer to 720p on my home TV in terms of resolution (pixels per degree field of view.)
A digital IMAX comparable to and worthy of the name of the format needs to be more like 16k. But I guess the costs of that hasn't yet intersected with the reality of making profitable movie theaters.
I think you would need to sit back further from the screen so as to not see the pixels but the problem with that is the screen would start to look smaller.
Am I correct in understanding that a IMAX Laser is a technology that replaces the light source in a projector? If so, does this technology work for both film and digital projectors?
Actually I recently watched the film Dune on IMAX digital (not Laser). I must say that pixels are very visible in small and contrasting details. Especially on the titles. I really didn't like it. I mean, at all, this sense of digital. It is a pity that the film 🎞 is leaving our everyday life.
I had the same experience with IMAX digital in that I can see the pixels but I also get that with pretty much all digital projection in cinemas.
Using a laser light source with film projection would be a really interesting approach. I wonder as well can they create a form of digital film projection were a solid image like a film is presented in front of the light source so as to project a film like picture on screen.
Insightful
What is the difference between IMAX and bluray?
Thanks 🙏🏻 I
were you at the TIFF Dunkirk Screening / North of Superior in 2017?
I had really wanted to go, but couldn’t make it. The year before there was an Art Event there and I saw some other 70mm stuff that was amazing. Shots of huge oil well fires that a crew were trying to put out. I got to check out the projector as well when they had it switched over for film
Analog Resurgence its an amazing booth. Especially since it can play both film and digital formats of IMAX.
HOW MUCH FOR A FILM REEL OF 70MM ??
wow i've lived in toronto for 4 years and have never been to cinesphere. Gotta go watch tenet there
Your videos are cool but I can't stand the low frequency rumble that goes on while you talk. Can't tell if it's intentional or you have a furnace going or washer/dryer. I suggest cutting low end for the people who watch/listen on a full range system.
anyone catch the backing track? name pls :D
It’s honestly something random that my roommate made years ago
Where did you get the IMAX film?
A projectionist gave some to a lab that I was working at a little while back so I was able to get a few frames of it!
ebay. search IMAX FILM CELL. there are a ton from interstellar and some from harry potter
You speak the truth bro 🎞😎
I need that sure shot owl
Why isn't anyone talking about anamorphic lens with Imax cameras?
Im mixed on digatal IMAX the only thing it has going for it is the sound and the picture is a little bit bigger but if see a film that was not made for imax it looks bad.
It makes no sense to me why IMAX, the largest film format ever made, would go with the boxy 4:3 ratio instead of the 1:85:1 ratio. Also, if they simply made the perforations larger, they wouldn't need to have so many.
Larger perforations/less perforations would greatly reduce the amount of stability that the film would have when moving through the camera. Due to its size and the speed at which it moves, film needs those perforations for the camera to transport it steadily through the camera for consistent spacing and registration.
@@AnalogResurgence I see. What about the aspect ratio?
@@ArnoldTohtFan
IMAX image preferences height over width so the 4:3 style image on their giant screens can lead to a different type of experience.
@@bighands69 that doesn't make much sense to me. isn't 1:85 most similar to our vision?
@@ArnoldTohtFan
IMAX prefer to go with height in their image. I personally prefer widescreen in a cinema and think that anamorphic for movies in 35mm and 70mm is beautiful.
In saying all of that I have seen the IMAX in Sydney which was 15/70mm IMAX and was the largest cinema screen in the world and Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure looked stunning on it and no other experience in cinema has been like that for me.
Woooow what are the chances I have an 8mm film from the 1967 expo
hey im making a movie , can u help me , i think u know many things abt it pls?
It's very difficult to find movie theaters that project true 70mm film anymore. Most have been converted to digital because they are cheaper and easier to maintain. Do not be fooled! Digital IMAX projects in 2K while real 70mm IMAX is equivalent to 12K and are projected on much larger, curved screens!
wrong
correct
*christopher nolan intensifies*
I love your channel to death, and I say this with all the love in my heart - your background music is distractingly bad and a tad too loud lol.
3 YEARS LATE SQUAD WHERE YOU AT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Sadly it all comes down to money. Film is expensive, and theaters buying the movies on film is expensive compared to just a file on a hard drive.... We the consumer did this unintentionally with streaming and obsessing over 4k.
What is 70 mm IMAX - Christopher Nolan movies
@6:37 Yeah... My Lap top is 4K.... Well QHD... ALmost 4K.... IMHO
I woulf like to watch 2001 an odissey, in IMAX sisyem, It Would be fantástic!!!!!!
I love you
I've seen ONE ho-hum film in IMAX 3D with the "five-story-high-screen" and came away...unimpressed. (It was "Battle Los Angeles," where a USMC detachment does the "Star Wars Imperial Stomtroopers" thing when Aliens Attack!) "Wasted potential" is what comes to mind. Cinerama's "How The West Was Won" did it MUCH better in 2D, which was merely amazing at the time.
I think movie theater chains broke the projectionist union before the switch to digital? Anyway, you need to pay skilled people to run analogue protectors. Switch to digital and you just get someone from concessions to flick on the movie. Pretty sad.
I do not think the theaters were at fault. I suspect that it was a top to bottom approach and that the distribution system prefered digital as it was much cheaper but it now has created a problem that people are not going to the cinema due to the experience not being that impressive.
8:03p.m. 8/9/2022
And , of course 70mm
My kinda talks
cute guy
Imax is the only reason that film can still be used, but there are already some large sensor Arri cameras that might be better and if not, they will be soon. Film should die forever then, analogue is the past and should die like analogue crt tvs and analogue modems and many other crap
Film are for losser