Oppenheimer 70MM IMAX surprised me ... i still loved it though
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 лип 2024
- I watched Oppenheimer in 70mm Imax film projection and was amazed by the 15 perf footage. I was also surprised by a few things I wasn't expecting.
HUGE BW FILM DISCOUNT: www.newclassicfilm.com/produc...
Sources:
Using both 15 and 5 perf on a final print: theasc.com/articles/dunkirk-w...
Oppenheimer formats info: www.oppenheimermovie.com/tick...
Hoyte Interview -- Kodak Double X: www.kodak.com/en/motion/blog-...
Helpful Reddit Thread: / is_a_movie_like_oppenh...
Making of Oppenheimer video: • Making Of OPPENHEIMER ...
70mm 15 perf comparison video: • Why you need to see Op...
IMAX Camera sound: • Sounds of IMAX 15/70 f...
IMAX Projection booth video: • See How OPPENHEIMER 70...
0:00 Intro
1:04 two different 65mm formats
1:47 imax cameras are very loud
2:21 the other 65mm camera -- 5 perf
3:17 oppenheimer uses both 15 and 5 perf 65mm
3:48 5 perf is 'zoomed in'
5:44 15 perf 65mm is incredible on an imax screen
8:34 5 perf doesn't look great on an imax screen
10:48 kodak double X is a classic film stock
11:43 the focus of the image was sometimes off
15:06 shooting in imax 70mm is hard
15:47 dust on the projection
16:49 projectors have broken and ruined the imax movie
17:09 imax projection is 'romantic' - Наука та технологія
It's funny that all the 'issues' that you point out are actually things that really elevated the experience for me. I love all the imperfections, dust, grain, missed focus. Makes it feel like a much more organic, true film experience. Everyone is different, though!
yea makes sense
I'm 100% with you... The beauty of film IS the imperfections and quirks. It's, as you said, organic... Mechanical.
In movies, specially those shot on film where you can't immediately check what you shot, the only reason an out of focus image would make the cut is because the performance was prioritized than everything else.
Yup totally makes sense, the performances were indeed great
Most of the out of focus shots in this films (which were only really a couple) were interntional. It’s a trick cinematographers use. It takes some getting used to but now I actually enjoy it and notice it’s purpose. When there’s a close up and it’s interionally out of focus to make you feel different, things aren’t as clear, etc.
@@ribsy Most of the out of focus shots in this film (which were only really a couple) were interntional. It’s a trick cinematographers use. It takes some getting used to but now I actually enjoy it and notice it’s purpose. When there’s a close up and it’s interionally out of focus to make you feel different, things aren’t as clear, etc.
I’m a union camera operator. The reason those shots were out of focus is because they shot on film not digital. When shooting film the 1st AC (focus puller) is going off of measurements only. They can’t see the image to pull focus like on digital. And when the depth of field is so shallow, that a half of an inch makes all of the difference that’s what happens. It wasn’t intentional to have them out of focus. It was the fact that the actor was literally have an inch off of the mark. it’s very different than nowadays when we all shoe digital stuff and we can see it there on the day.
I'm curious to know if the IMAX cameras can support a video tap; standard reflex film cameras have an angled mirror shutter blade that redirects light from the lens to either an eyepiece for the camera opetator to view while filming, or a video tap (camera built into the film camera) which can relay what the lens "sees" (in some cases a beamsplitter can allow for both, but that reduces the amount of light, resulting in a darkening of the viewed image). I understand that IMAX cameras use a proprietary movement called "rolling loop" rather than standard movie camera intermittent movement, so this might preclude the ability to fit a mirror shutter blade, in which case it would be impossible to see what the camera is capturing until the film is processed and viewed.
The color grading part validated me! I pointed this out after seeing it on 70mm and couldn’t find an explanation. This puts me to rest 😂
Yea’! It was so strange to see. Didn’t ruin the movie tho
Thanks for an interesting take on this. I saw it on 70mm last week in Manchester, England and was blown away by it (no pun intended) it was a real experience and a fantastic piece of cinematography. I’ve never seen a full theatre sit watching to the very end of the credits before and then leave in almost silence. Amazing.
I’m getting on in years now (62) after being a professional in both the photography world and the sound engineering world. It was interesting to hear your take on this as you sounded like me a few years ago where I would have technically analysed everything to the possible detriment of enjoying the overall experience. I’m more chilled now, not sure if that’s good or bad.
I liken it to when CDs came in in the early 80s, we’d lived happily with surface noise on records for generations and got them to really low levels, I loved my music and the noise never really stopped the emotional experience. Then came digital with its amazing silence. Playing a record suddenly became nauseating and was that way for years, I’d become used to the technology advance. Now vinyl discs are back in fashion and the noise is considered character. We are strange creatures.
So for me, no, the technical issues of frame size, grain ( I actually think the grain on some of the B&W scenes added to the visual story), image rendition and focus, yes, even the 4 feet long hair which appeared in frame for 10 seconds, they were not a huge distraction.
Again thanks for a great overview of what I consider to be the best cinema experience I remember having
yea i want to see 70mm
I saw it in 70mm in Arizona. The only distraction for me was dust. It would come on and off at random times. Otherwise the story was very immersive and the 3 hour runtime flew by. Excellent work by Nolan and his team!
truly excellent!
I already watched it on 1570 IMAX 3 times. Maybe I am really in love with this film, gonna watch it again later this month. A few things I noticed. 1) the audio differences between digital IMAX and 70 mm IMAX film is as noticeable as the visual. 2) The 70 mm IMAX film has a brighter sound signature, that makes the dialog easier to catch. The digital IMAX is bassier, which is more dramatic and immersive if you already know the plot. 3) the crowds made a big different. All the 1570 IMAX were 99% packed, while digital IMAX was 40% packed. It is very annoying when someone in the front row turn on their phone screen, even just for 5 sec. I booked another 1570 IMAX at 10pm Tuesday 3 week ahead, and hope fewer people would come, but unfortunately, when I checked today, it was 90% full again.
wow 3 times!
Very lucky timing on getting tickets, I saw it twice on regular 70mm but the closest IMAX 70mm has been sold out for weeks, even the showings at 10:30 pm on weeknights... but now as I watch this video I realize I saw the film on 5 perf and even with the cropping I found the image to be exceptional and clear (a couple of minor lines through a couple of scenes due to wear and tear on the print itself).
Haha! Someone in my showing yelled at someone else to turn off their phone a couple rows in front of them. They must have been checking something. I couldn't see it, but I was in the same row as the yeller.
@@pastamatt Lol, Some people were treating Oppenheimer as if it was a classical concert.
I watched 1570 last night on a sold out show. I noticed that it was the most respectful audience I ever seen during a movie.
I didn't really notice the b&w grain issue, but I did notice some missed focused shots. In the theater I just chalked it up to the format being difficult to work in. I Definitely found it charming in the end I suppose.
Great discussion--going to see it this weekend and this was really interesting to see before the movie. Well done!
Thanks for watching! Yea so much to unpack
Wow, I def learned a lot with this video, thanks! Regarding the focus issue, while I did not see the film in true imax, but digital imax, I did also notice the issue with focus going in and out. Overall, however, I didn't have the same complaint, if anything, I feel the out of focus moments, even if unintentional, contributed towards the overall anxiety and tension of the film. I didn't find it that distracting personally.
Yea that’s a good point. Def a lot of anxiety and tension in much of the movie
@ribsy @rggamer67
Maybe because the IMAX70mm lenses were modified from Hasselblad 6x6 lenses (I'm not sure), the focus ring might not very easy to use during the motion picture shoot. Anyway, I can't believe that such a mistake would be made by a world-class director and cinematography team.I'd rather believe that they intentionally shot it the out of focus. In "The world will remember this day" speech scene, the focus on the extras seems very strange, and in this scence, Cillian's face is also out of focus quite ofen.
@@eintakt50cc They used two modified Panavision System 65 lenses, a 50mm and an 80mm.
@@mvonwalter6927 It's incredible that the Pana 65 lens can cover such a large image area and enough resolution. I read "Panavision Sphero 65 and Hasselblad Lenses" from Oppenheimer IMDB page
fantastic deep dive, thank you for making this!
I saw it in 70mm IMAX and it was an incredible experience. I feel it intensified many of the scenes with how it just filled up ur entire vision. At times it was honestly overwhelming but in a good way. It made you feel like you were actually in the movie to a certain degree. There were many specs of dust on the screen at times but honestly it just added to the charm for me. And hearing the actual projector when the movie started up was also awesome. Overall I was super happy with my experience.
Yea it was overwhelming in a good way
This is my 3rd Nolan film I've seen projected in either 70mm or IMAX and you are spot on. With an imax size screen the scenes shot with the "lesser" formats become obvious. You should have seen how soft the 35mm looked blown up to an IMAX screen on The Dark Knight Rises! So I agree with you on that point.
So this time I went to a 70mm screening, rather than IMAX, for Oppie and the experience was much more consistent. Of course, there are shots where the focus was off slightly but when your depth of field is that shallow it happens; even with a great 1st AC. I will definitely be picking this one up once it gets released on a 4k blu ray too. What a beautiful movie... definitely one of his best!
I saw dark knight imax years ago but had no idea what was going on in terms of specs haha
And yes - def want to get this on blu ray. I don’t even own a blu ray and will get one for this
the 15/70 Projections a way ahead of the 5/70 Projections, due to the extrem age and simplicity of the 5/70 Ptojectors:)
Thank you for your very in-depth explanation concerning the analog filming of this motion picture. The fascinating aspects concerning film/negative sizes and the production of a useable print relative to a lot of technical variables were very interesting to hear about.
thanks for watching
I think the reason a few of the 5-perf shots were out of focus was that they used new lenses on it. I think it might actually come down to one specific lens they used for close ups since it almost always went precisely to the ears instead of the eyes. So maybe one of these new lenses had back focus issues on 65mm 5-perf. Because they were designed for digital.
Also the reason they made it in the film is that Nolan doesn’t reshoot on principal.
Interesting. Very surprising that even the highest budget films will take risks on lenses
@@ribsy It’s not really a risk, more an oversight on an edge case problem. These lenses are T1.5, which is super shallow on 65mm. Maybe a back focus issue slipped through during testing on that one particular focal length. Add that to the challenge of pulling focus so close with a fast lens and stuff like that can happen.
I always thought the out of focus shallow depth of field shots were intentional, representive of the "blurry" moral lines Oppy is traversing.
I saw exactly this - ears in focus rather than eyes. Subtle, but there. On B&W shots of Strauss. Interesting hypothesis you have there about the reason.
@@RJBaculo I think that's often the case in the colour shots. But the B&W shots are not from Oppenheimer's subjective point of view, and some of those had unintentional focus issues - albeit very minor
Wow! Great video and the best analysis of this movie I’ve seen. Congrats!
Thanks!
Thanks for the overview! Curious if it was just my screening (true 1570 IMAX), but I noticed the black and white sections were not neutral at all, looked very duotoned - warm highlights and cool shadows. I found it really distracting as I'm not a fan of that look. But I'm wondering if it was just the theater I saw it in. Anyone else notice this?
hmmm interesting
Nice explanation. I enjoyed the information. Thanks!!!
Thank you!
Fascinating video! Thank you!
thanks!
I did notice the out of focus stuff! However, I only noticed it in the IMAX format. In my standard local theater i dont think the resolution and screen size was big enough for it to be noticable.
Yea makes sense
love your insights--you got a new fan!
i appreciate it!
Awesome comparisons and explanations!
I saw in regular 70mm (non-IMAX), I was too immersed in the movie to notice if there was cropping, but I did notice the strange color "grading" changes within scenes. I actually liked the out of focus scenes, a bit distracting but still I found it somehow coherent with their scenes.
thanks for watching!
This was cool and I learned a lot! Stoked to see it myself soon!
you will enjoy it
Great Video and you have a great eye to spot the things you are discussing. Film is an analogue medium and its flaws are its strength. Art is many textures and film gives us one of them and different formats gives more textures. Love your commentary.
Yea analogue is the best way
On normal 5/70mm it looked incredible. Still think i enjoyed my digital IMAX experience better but its not every day a mocie gets a 70mm release so i had to go experience that.
Also the Colorado Springs IMAX screen is about 70' tall so it definitely wasnt a Liemax experience.
yea i want to see normal 70mm as well
Saw Oppenheimer on 5-perf 70mm last year and absolutely loved it. Happily, my local indie cinema has a good projectionist, and there were no issues with framing on the screen, dirt on the print, out-of-focus projection or anything. The movie looked so good that I didn't notice any errors in focus. A problem nowadays is that because hardly anywhere has the capability of screening films on 35 or 70, there is less care taken, and younger folks just assume that a sort of aesthetic crappiness is the "authentic" look of film.
Last year, In the same cinema, I saw a 70mm print of Interstellar, and it too looked stunning. What I did notice was that the colour palette was vastly superior to the Blu-Ray that came out a decade ago. The digital version was overly contrasty and saturated - all the actors looked like they had been smeared in fake tan. The film print, on the other hand, was rich and saturated, but in a more natural way.
You are lucky to still be able to see authentic IMAX movies. My local IMAX scrapped its film projector and replaced it with a digital one. LIE-MAX, I believe it's called.
The last move I saw in "real" IMAX was The Dark Knight Rises. The IMAX shots were full-screen and the 35mm shots were letterboxed. You might think that this switiching of aspect ration during the film would have been distracting, but I hardly noticed it.
If the success of Oppenheimer doesn't convince other filmmakers that shooting on film is still viable a option, then nothing will.
Nit-picking is good! Your analysis is riveting. Thanks. I doubt I’d see many of the details that you saw. Nevertheless, I’m keen to learn about the process and the results. Now I REALLY want to see it in 70mm IMAX. Good luck, MAN!
Glad you enjoyed!
I agree with everything you said and I did also notice those out of focus shots. That being said, OOF shots are more common and I’ve noticed them in a lot of films.
The most jarring and charming part of the film for me was hearing the hum and clatter of the projector right before the movie started and during the quiet moments.
haha fair enough
I saw it on Imax the midnight primer and it still had minor dust which I didn't mind at all. The experience of hearing projector play the film, the humongous screen, and the loudness was outstanding. Not my favorite Nolan film but definitely an amazing movie.
The movie is so good I wasn't once distracted by the ratio changes. It was an amazing experience overall. Especially that sound.
I did notice the focus in some acenes thoufh,.but again it didnt take me out of the experience at all.
Great video by the way. 😊
Yea the movie was dope
Excellent analysis. You've earned yourself a sub.
Welcome aboard
I loved the film and embraced the analog exhibition. I saw it in 70MM IMAX in Buford, GA. I look forward to the day when Nolan shoots an entire film in 15-perf. I noticed the B&W grain was more pronounced in the 5-perf scenes, but I forgot to factor in the stretch to cover a 15-perf negative! Thanks for highlighting that!
he hates doing ADR though so that would require excessive use on it on his part
they are apparently coming out with new imax cameras that will allow for dialogue
I watched few month ago "LAWRENCE OF ARABIA"
its from 1969 and it filmed on 65mm eastmen kodak film, it looks unbelivsnle , its an oldschool look to it but the colors and the details are on a new level , even that i watched it on FULL HD it looks unbelivable , also many cines looks really cool and its really different from this days photogrsphy becous thay fidnt care so much for backround bllure, bokeh, they stoped down to F11 , F16 , and it looks so refreshing
Yea I want to see that
Excellent technical review.
Thanks
Really good explanation of the different IMAX formats and now, I’ll have to go and see it again, this time in IMAX!
I am a little confused: you often spoke about the 15-perf but the clips you showed were mostly 5-perf, right (because they were less square)?
Na what I showed was the web trailer, which was fully exported for standard TV and web formats. Any 15 perf footage was “cropped into” for the trailer
Really enjoyed your video thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’m confused on the dust issue. The way you describe it,it sounds like the dust was on the print, not the film gate.
i dunno but it was def present and distracting
So which scenes have wide aspect ratio. Is it only color. Which scenes have taller aspext ratio
The 70mm shots are wide screen, the IMAX shots are taller.
Where did you go see the movie? I am seeing it in Ft Lauderdale on the 21st. Driving 2 hours each way to do so. Only theatre in Florida!
NYC - Lincoln center
I worked on the movie Oppenheimer for 2 weeks in March of 2022 at the Trinity Site set location just outside of Belen New Mexico which was about 100 miles north or the real Trinity site so the surrounding terrain looked pretty much the same as the real Trinity Site location! They had a semi truck trailer set up as a projection room to watch film dailies that were transported by car every day back and fourth from the set on a ranch just outside of Belen New Mexico to the FotoKem film processing lab in Burbank California. There was a relay of drivers from the set in Belen to Gallup New Mexico to Kingman Arizona to Burbank California every day moving the film back and fourth. It was a great experience to be on this set. It was so perfect and realistic with great detail. It was like being in a time machine and going back in time to 1945. No studio work in the scenes shot here. Everything from the inside of the control room to the room on the top of the tower were all filmed at this location. The control bunker you see was a practical set and actually had the interior you see in the movie. They actually built a real bunker inside and out. The electronic equipment inside was period accurate as well. Just amazing. You could look out the port hole windows and see the tower. To watch them use the IMAX camera was amazing. It was so big and only could photograph for about 3 minutes at a time. There was a crew just to maintain the camera to keep it loaded with film. We worked long hours and the crew was great to work with.
That’s amazing. Sounds like quite the experience, thanks for sharing
For someone who is new to the format you sure do sound well informed!
Did a lot of research
I imagine some of the scenes used dialogue replacement (ADR) when there were noisy camera concerns or other issues, such as wind, etc.
i think they just switch to 5 perf instead for dialogue scenes
My first viewing on opening weekend was at an AVX theatre because the IMAX had no good seats available by the time I went to buy. I saw it again this past Tuesday in IMAX 70mm, and was even more blown away than the first time. Although I appreciate your analysis, I didn't notice most of the 'deficiencies' you mention, but I suspect that's more due to your focus (no pun intended) on the film technicalities. I was aware of the different film and cameras used beforehand, but overall the spectacular presentation, both in size and cinematography, was the only thing I noticed. Even the focus challenges you mentioned with shallow DOF were insignificant to my viewing experience. Overall it's just a brilliant movie filled with fantastic performances with great edits and a wonderful score. I hope the Academy finally gives Nolan his due this year.
Yea 70mm imax truly is incredible
In the horseback riding scene with Oppie and Kitty, the switch from 15perf to 5perf definitely has a color grade difference like you mentioned. It got alot darker and felt like a different movie.
That being said, I'm thrilled to get 50% of the movie in 15 perf, as opposed to just a select few scenes totally only 15-20 minutes as other movies have done.
Hopefully the Imax camera noise problem can be improved.
Or maybe Chris should just use an Arri digital Imax camera for dialogue scenes. (I know blasphemy)
yea i remember that scene exactly! great movie tho
Hey man, awesome review! You are my people... talking about all the stuff I want to hear. Even though I was primarily there to experience a well done film on 70mm IMAX projection, I was absorbed enough in the story that I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't even notice most of the times the film changed to 5 perf. Thinking back, I can definitely identify identify shots I know were 15 perf... but I feel like it was a pretty good job of hiding the lesser format in the midst of them. I also noticed the focus at times, but was mostly impressed with how well focus was achieved on a lot of shots considering how shallow the DOF and the tools they would have been limited to. I also suspect that they probably couldn't check a shot immediately and would have to wait for dailies. to know those details for sure... so to reshoot a scene the next day would mean an extra million dollars or something crazy. Any film is a series of deciding where you will make compromises. No compromises; no movie. I think Nolan struck a great balance.
A funny thing that took me out of the film was the ranch scene and feeling like the horses were very scared of the loud IMAX camera as they got close to it... they really appeared to be being pushed through some real reluctance.
They other thing that I found interesting because I was wondering about how do you shoot a film for so many different formats of viewing experience.... was that they do really expect you to focus your eyes on the centre of the screen. It's not like other styles of films where your eye is lead to the left or the right. You are meant to look at the very centre and let everything else fill your peripheral. Because of this pretty much every seat in the IMAX theatre was probably not too bad. I was a bit worried about being in the 5th row, but it wasn't too close.
I definately can't wait to see something else in 70mm IMAX film on 1570 projector.... I'm not sure what is next? Maybe Dune Part 2?
🤟🏽
I lived for those Double X shots 😍 just saw it tonight.
Yea the double x imax was wild
I saw a couple of days ago a digital projection and I didn't notice any of the issues mentioned about grading and grain. The misfocus thing happened also in Interestelar, Nolan seems to simply don't care.
Haha yea he def doesn’t. Perfection isn’t required for a great movie
Film can be color graded with rgb light. I don't know if they also did it with the black an white ones.
In digital I haven't seen any scenes unintentionally out of focus, so I think they also chose to not reshoot, because they just were so little out of focus that its barely noticeable
Yea I mention the printer lights for color
@@ribsy ok, very good 👍 i missunderstood that. Probably because im not that used to engligh yet
Nice explanarion video, personally i saw the movie in both imax (digital) and 35mm and indeed i notice some focus problem in the 35mm copy, specially in Los Alamos Part, but i dont know i it was a proyection flaw.
interesting. i noticed it most in some of the over the shoulder dialogue scenes
A great review, and I'm so envious, would love to see this movie on film. Dust was always a problem with film movie projectors, film breaking and projector jams would happen occasionally. The more the real of film was played, the greater the problems. I didn't realize the perf differences, thanks for the info! Medium format is so much nicer than 35mm in still camera shots (IMO), not surprising the same is true on movie film.
Def worth watching on film
Brilliant video, in which I never felt you were complaining, just describing your experience with IMAX in a very engaged, concerned manner. My eyes were opened, ha!
What I noticed, most of all amongst the technical issues you covered, was the focus/depth of field ‘problem’, especially in scenes with multiple characters in the frame, where only the person nearest the camera was in sharp focus. There are occasions where you can actually see the focal plane shifting when pulling focus, which is very noticeable and momentarily distracting. Other than that, I didn’t register much else, except for the changing aspect ratio of the film, and that the bottom edge of the IMAX frame seemed to reach almost to ground level in the cinema at times (depending on one’s seat location). I plan to see the film again, and will pay particular attention to the issues you raised this time. Thanks!
PS. If you have any comments on the audio/sound mix, I would be interested to hear them.
I will be watching again as well!
Their was flicker from the projector in the middle of the screen when I saw it in 70mm. Was very distracting and assuming it was projectionist error.
Good job. Thanks for your backup research. So many people just rant about topics they know nothing about.
The spec of dust stuck was a real experience for me as well
haha yup
I watched Dark Knight and Sky Fall at Lincoln Center REALmax when they released and it was extremely distracting to see it jump from 1570 to 570. There were some dialogue scheme when A cam is 1570 and B cam is 570 and the letter box constantly jump in and out to a point that really pull you out of the movie. But of course, for big establishing shots and key action sequence that was shot on 1570, they were beautiful.
Yea when I saw dark knight the opening scene was amazing in full imax
I think the coolest part, other than watching the film print, was that the whole process from camera negative to film print was completely analog with no digital intermediates. I listened to someone who did some work in format conversion talk about it. Said that the movie was edited on computers, but once editing was finished, the went back to the negatives and cut the movie to match the digital version and printed from the negatives optically.
I saw the movie in 5/70 first, then a few days later 15/70 IMAX. Both were really cool. The 5/70 looked nice and sharp in the regular theater. And it was an older single auditorium theater as well. The IMAX presentation was top tier though. And even though the scenes with the blown up 5/70 were grainy, they still looked pretty good. There was some dust on the copy of the IMAX movie I watched as well.
Watching the movie in 5/70 first also gave me the chance to just focus on the cinematography and how the film looked in the IMAX screening as well since I knew how the story would go.
I'm also musing over the idea of the Blu-Ray release. I think it would be super funny if they went full circle and brought back the option to watch the movie in "full screen" or "wide screen" like with DVDs so many years ago.
yea that is super cool that it was hand spliced. i need to see the 5 perf version
I definitely noticed the focusing issues and I saw it in digital. Like the other commenter said, seeing something out of focus was too late to fix. Ever since The Dark Knight, the focusing has been an issue for IMAX. It’s just a limitation because of the size of the image and therefore having a tiny depth of field, as you know. It was noticeable, for sure.
Yea def a limitation
Thank you, You voiced many things I've been thinking. I just watched the 70mm version. I also will express my disappointment more wasn't done in the IMAX format. But the shots that were... jaw-dropping. I first saw the film in a Dolby Theater, and found the trinity explosion very underwhelming. But for some reason in the full frame 70mm it was incredible. There was one wide shot which showed the entirety of the explosion and it filled the frame from top to bottom. It was stunning and really showed the scale well. In the cropped versions it didn't hit nearly as hard.
On the note of camera noise, My thought has been why couldn't they put the camera in a sound proof box to shield the noise from the microphones. Hoyte, the cinematographer, stated in an interview that you can do some noise proofing, but ultimately most of the noise travels through the lens assembly, and you can't cover that up. I've been ruminating on this problem, and wonder if perhaps the solution might be to re-engineer how the film is fed through the camera. The perforations are the reason it is so loud. Rattling through 15 perfs a second takes a lot of machinery. If a non-perf solution could be thought of, then we can get a quieter camera. Or perhaps create a new film type with less or larger perforations that don't travel as quickly. The perforation system has been in use since the inception of motion pictures over a hundred years ago. Surely with modern mechanical techniques we could develop a new way to feed a film strip. Just my 2 cents.
I did also notice some of the out of focus shots, but a lot of that I think is the lack of being able to check footage as you're shooting. Also sometimes a performance is stronger in an out of focus shot, and the filmmakers must make a decision if it is worth one soft shot. I've made this exact decision many times in my editing, where a shot is just not quite right, but the quality of the performance was worth the hit.
The color balance I also noticed. Strangely I saw it most between different B&W shots. Some had a more bluish tint than others. I'd chalk that up to different stocks and processing. My ultimate opinion is that I do think a lot could have been solved with a digital intermediary, there is a "purist" satisfaction knowing that it was a manual process with this film. Loved the movie, and Loved the 70mm exhibition.
Found your channel through this video and I am looking forward to digging into your other videos. Cheers!
Yea the imax shots were truly beautiful
I definitely noticed the transitions between 5 and 15 perf in black and white, but it didn't bother me... but that could be because I've seen previous Nolan movies in 70mm IMAX. The transitions from 15 perf IMAX daylight shots to 70mm interior shots on the Moonstone (a boat, if you haven't seen the film) in Dunkirk were far more of a distraction to me than anything in Oppenheimer. I suspect the reason for that was so distracting is because I'm guessing that Nolan was switching between Vision 3 50D to Vision 3 500T on a smaller format. That said, I really enjoyed both films... I've learned to embrace these quirks in Nolan's films.
Yea! I love his movies
I saw it on 70MM IMAX in Los Angeles. In fact, one of the staff told me it was one of the few theaters Christopher Nolan personally visited just weeks before to test-view and make sure it all ran smoothly. As a Nolan fan, I went it with the knowledge of the film stocks and frame sizes used in this. So all that was left was the experience that awaited.
All views on film are subjective. So I understand your nitpicking as you put it. My experience I felt was enhanced by the changes between 15 to 5 perf. Whenever the screen went full, it put me in awe, and made me appreciate those scenes that much more. There was only one scene in my viewing that I saw dust, yet I enjoyed it. Again, subjective preference.
I didn’t notice any focus issues, or at least none to lessen my viewing experience. I personally feel any shots with an abundance of bokeh was 100% intentional by Hoyte van Hoytema.
With most films having been shot digitally the last 10+ years, it almost seems we’re in a film renaissance lately, Nolan being one of the many to contribute to this. So having the privilege to experience this film in its pinnacle glory made it hard for me to mentally sift out imperfections and instead gave me a sensor-overload with grateful awe and disbelief. I’ll look back 10 years from now and still remember this experience.
I liked the overall movie and experience
why they didn't just change the aspect ratio completely instead of zooming in?
I think when you have the giant imax screen you want to fill in as much as possible. Given the different image sizes you have to zoom
Re: Focusing. It seems like the lenses used were often at their close focus (the minimum distance the lens can have sharp) so when an actor leans in or moves closer than their mark, it goes out of focus. This seems to be the case because a lot of the out of focus shots had the actors ear in focus or the like. For me it bounces back and forth between being a little quirk of film and just a mistake. As someone else mentioned when this happens you definitely prioritize performance so thats why some buzzed shots were included.
That BW shot of Strauss in the car is one of my favorites in the movie. The 1570 screens are getting extended through the end of the month so more chances for those who haven't seen it yet!
Yea exactly - sometimes it appeared more than jsut a quick, totally acknowledge how hard it is tho
You are absolutely nitpicking, but in an inteligent and rounded way. I found your thoughts and insights really interesting. I would now really like to see the film in IMAX 70mm to understand more about some of your points
def go watch
I drove 3 and a half hours to see Oppenheimer in 15/70 last night. First time seeing the film. I noticed the out of focusness and some of the black and white shots seem to have non continuous color grading between shots, which I was surprised they let that pass. The first hour I thought the film was too dark, didn't have good black depth but then the bulb failed. They had the audience vote to wait it out, or to switch to dual laser. The audience voted unanimously to wait to see if they could fix the film. They started the film back up 45 minutes later and it had much better black depth, so it must have been a projector problem. When they started the film up there was alot of dust on the lens, imax projectors have a dust wipe that goes off every couple seconds so I wondered if that broke, but the dust subsided. I'm glad I got to experience 15/70. I used to work at a place that had 15/70 and was always impressed with the machine, that's why I wanted to make the drive. Digital is slowly getting better. Probably in another 10 years it'll surpass 15/70. Where I work now we use Christie 4k and I feel that it's a much better image than standard 5/70mm. But nothing beats the full 1.43:1 15/70 shots.
wow that sucks!
As a photographer who likes to shoot wide open, f1:1.4 and sometimes f1:1.2, I saw those soft images where focus was a bit off. I experienced the same, watching Star Trek Into Darkness. It was partly shot on IMAX 70mm too. The was a scene where Benedict Cumberbatch was super soft. I must say I'm 52 and I shot a lot of 35mm SLR manual focus. It was a lot more difficult to be super sharp shooting wide open. Today with mirrorless cameras, it's too easy! When I was younger and going at the movies, film, not digital, I remember there were a lot more soft images but people were less critical about that because it was "usual". Today with digital camera and even lidar digital focus pulling, it's rare to see that. Seeing a print in 70mm IMAX is like seeing a movie under a microscope... So yes I understand what you mean. I saw the digital IMAX version and noticed the same. If you want to read about perception of what is sharp and what is not, depending on each different person, read about "the circle of confusion"
yea its tough to shoot wide open on cinema
I’m surprised to hear the comments about the dust being that much of a bother.
It’s film, it’s par for the course, and we just lived with it back in the day.
The bigger concern used to be if there would be a long line at the arcade after the movie or not.
It’s very obvious on imax
I've seen it twice in Imax 70mm at Universal Citywalk, once at Chinese theatre imax70mm, and once 70mm without Imax. If you are still trying to catch this in 70mm Imax, they extended it to Sept 24th at Universal and there's tons of available seats. Vaycay to Hollywood! It's the best showing from what I've seen, tho I'm curious how much dust there will be on the last day after such a long run. I actually love it when the aspect ratio/grain switches- it's noticeable and alerts you that the moment in the shot is more emotionally important than others. I dunno I love this movie I can't get enough.
In one of my viewings there was a huge hair that lasted a few scenes and covered half of RDJr's face in a very emotionally charged close up segment. I think it was my 70mm, that one there was too much flicker too so I think maybe it was a bad projectionist.
loved the movie and the look! But I agree a 100% what you mentioned about the focus pulling. There was this one scene with three characters talking to each other in one frame. And it really felt like the camera person had big issues with focussing the right character at the right time. Almost like he didn't knew the script and who is going to talk. But overall it didn't harm my movie experience and it made it even more charming for me to see how people manually work with these analog/film formats.
Agreed. Movie was really good regardless and many imax scenes were incredibly beautiful
I watched the movie on 35mm due to in the City I live in there's no real imax theaters (There are two imax theaters but they are digital imax) and unfortunately some issues went on while watching the film hahaha but overall really cool film and I'm glad that I was able to see it on film, even though it was on 35mm. Great video as always!!!
Def wanna see a 35mm screening. Want to appreciate each format
There are no digital 70mm video cameras with IMAX resolution?
Arri 65 digital camera compares to 5 perf. Nothing compares to 15 perf
Cinelabs in London scans IMAX film at 12k and there are no 12k cameras in production yet.
Very interesting. I saw it in 70mm and apart from a few scratches and dust (which personally wasn't distracting as i was expecting it) i didn't really notice anything that looked odd. It's possible my memory betrays me, but it never looked out of focus to me. I thought the quality of the picture was very good. I personally actually kind of enjoyed the grain and particles because i felt it added a bit of atmosphere, especially since the film is a period piece, i thought it was pretty fitting.
I will say though that this is definitely an experience not everyone will care for. I understand people won't care for grain or dust, especially since we're so used to having a very clean picture now. I also understand that in terms of quality, the difference isn't going to be groundbreaking. I imagine also that people will get a slightly different experience on film depending on the theater. It's more for film nerds imo.
if you watch in 70mm you won't have most of the things i mentioned. what i mentioned is specific to the 70mm imax (15 perf)
thank god i didnt know that color grade difference before i've seen the movie, because it would make me all i could remember from the movie xd
Haha
I saw Oppenheimer on 4K Laser IMAX but I saw Dunkirk on both a 70mm projection (in a regular theatre) and later on Laser in IMAX. I remember the 70mm film projection had issues because the image stuttered and the center of the frame wasn't in focus though out the whole runtime. Probably was some human error/faulty old projector.
That’s unfortunate!
So when you watch this in IMAX 70, you are seeing ALL the images exactly as shot. The 5 perf is not zoomed in or stretched or cropped in any way. Conversely , if you watch it in 70mm or DCP, the 15 perf image IS cropped top and bottom to fit into the 2.20:1 aspect ratio. Make sense?
My memory of the aspect ratio of the 5 perf was that it didn’t look like expected - it filled up way more of the screen so o assumed it was zoomed in. But I see your point
The dust bothered me much, much less than the strobing brightness during bright shots. I guess that's a limitation of projecting film, but I found it a bit headache inducing at first a bit like using 3D TVs with shutter-based glasses (a feature I've used exactly once as a result).
sounds like a bad projection
I saw it twice in 70mm, amazing movie. Im about to see TENET this week in 70mm aswell.
yea i got ads for tenet. may go see it in 70mm as well!
The loud imax camera is the reason all Nolan’s movies are only partially shot in imax.
correct
Awesome video and breakdown! I saw the IMAX 70mm print at the Universal CityWalk and it was a flawless presentation with minimal dust. I saw it again at the TCL Chinese in IMAX 70mm a few days later and the presentation went smoothly but the print was far dirtier with lots of dust apparent when compared to the CityWalk print. The out of focus scenes were very noticeable and unfortunate but didn't take away from the experience at all. Truly a beautiful photochemical print and I hope a new film is presented this way in the near future.
I read about IMAX developing a new fleet of 65mm cameras and that IMAX will be consulting with directors like Nolan and Jordan Peele and cinematographers like Hoyte van Hoytema. Apparently the new cameras will be lighter and more quiet. I anticipate Nolan or perhaps another director will make an entire movie on IMAX 65mm film at some point once these cameras are available because it will make close-up dialogue sequences possible.
Interesting
Good work as always.
Nolan supposively shot this in under 2 months! May explain some of the 'imperfections'. 70mm B&W film, InFencredible.
Did you see it at the Lincoln Square theater? They have a true IMAX screen.
Keep up the great work!
Yea Lincoln square! Huge imax screen
I really want to see this movie in 70MM IMAX, but the one IMAX theater here in Philadelphia is completely fully sold out until it leaves theaters on the 17th :((
go see it in 70mm - should be amazing too
Enjoyed the explanation. Watched it in 70mm. The out of focus also was distracting to me. Made me question why they hired for focus pulling lol
Haha I think similar. But I also figure with film and all the complexity of imax, they prob can’t afford too many takes
I've been watching Christopher Nolan's movies in 1570 IMAX since The Dark Knight was released, but this was the first time I've noticed incorrectly focussed images and the strangest thing is it wasn't even on the 15perf shots - there are several dialogue scenes with Robert Downey Jnr that are just the 5perf shots and noticed immediately the focus was on his ears or temples, and his eyes were out of focus. I guess we need to blame the camera operator or focus puller for those shots because I've never seen it in any other Nolan movie. Regarding the grain on the 5perf film though - if you look at the trailers on a big 4k TV and you go to some of those shots, you don't see any of it. Looks crystal clear. That just goes to show why you really need the 15perf film to fill the giant IMAX screen. This is even worse if you've ever seen and upscaled 35mm print, what IMAX used to call 'DMR'. Saw a Batman Begins DMR release and it was awful. Same for Tron Legacy which was shot on 2k cameras :(
interesting. yea the upscaling on giant imax screen is just too much
Seeing it tomorrow at the same theater
Hope you got good seats! Middle and higher are a must
The couple out of focus shots are mostly intentional. The a trick cinematographers use to make the shit have a different feel, when things aren’t as clear.
I don’t think so in this case
Definitely not😂
Saw it at true IMAX theater here in SF. I noticed everything you noticed including the dust, the pull focus problem and the color / contrast / grain shifts. My reaction to your comments was that none of these bothered me. But given that I remember noticing them all at the same level of detail you did, I would have to admit, they must have been distracting.
Overall, I tend to like the wabi sabi effect these issues have on the film and it definitely made viewing it much more engaging than some digitally perfect masterpiece. But what I find harder to get my head around is the compositional limitations Nolan imposed on himself by shooting the two different aspect ratios and then screening them in both formats in different theaters. He ends up confining himself to a relatively small square in the center of the screen just so he can blow up or crop frames to fit the format being shown. This seems to eliminate a lot of interesting asymmetry that might have otherwise been used in a single format film.
But like you, I’m really just nitpicking here. Ultimately loved the film, especially as a (n imperfect) piece of visual art.
Totally see your point. The movie is great regardless - I really enjoyed it
Watched a flawless 70mm screening of OPPENHEIMER at a premium theater in my city and I always love to see that slight projection flickering of the screen again! Takes me back to watching films when I was younger. It's a little thing but it immediately fills me with a little bit of joy! :-) Same actually goes for missed focus. You can see it in a lot of movies shot on film. It's a mistake and technically a flaw, but I just appreciate the "non-perfection", I think...
70mm should be pretty nice
They didn't crop or zoom the 5 perf footage. They enlarged it for the print to match the width and mantained the 2.20 aspect ratio.
You'll see exactly the same images on a 5/70 print where only the 15/70 was cropped to 2.20.
And the 35mm print is cropped to 2.35:1 and optcally reduced to the 35mm width.
I see what you mean and I’m not disagreeing. Altho I feel that I remember seeing a 5 perf image that was different to 2:20, so I assumed it was zoomed in to use up the majorly of the imax screen
@@ribsy while it's possible they cropped some 5/70 footage to 1.43 I don't recall anything that stood out as such. And can't imagine they would with all the 15/70 footage they shot.
@@ribsy Technically, the film was "blown up" from 70mm to IMAX. No cropping was involved.
I wonder how Dune 2 is going to stack up. I guess it's being shown in 70mm in some areas and I keep hearing about how I "gotta see it in 70mm". Apparently it was shot digitally, but converted to 70mm?... I don't know enough about film and theaters to know exactly what to expect for the experience.
Experienced and noticed exactly the same things when viewing the movie in 70mm
Interesting
As a former pro photographer who used to shoot in 2 & a quarter, I love this explanation and recognize the tribulations of shooting film in this format. While digital has overtaken film these days, there is no comparison in my mind and eye, between the difference between digital and the wide image range of film.
Can you imagine 70 mm shot on Kodachrome, if it was still available?
that would be nuts!
Technicolor was the zenith of movie film.
I made another comment about the film transitions, but as far as the dust goes... I'm pretty sure IMAX uses a vacuum plate to hold the film flat during projection because it's so large, which is why the dust sticks around so long. On my viewing there was a dust speck right in the center of the screen that stubbornly stayed there for at least half an hour... considering that the film opens on a long shot of Cillian Murphy looking directly into the camera, having a big speck of dust right on the tip of his nose was pretty distracting, but eventually I stopped noticing it. Persistent dust specs were far less common during the 35mm film days. Even with all the imperfections, it's still better than anything else going.
Yea the system is perfect but does the job against dust
I watched digital imax dome special print. & i couldn't find a single shot which wasn't tac sharp. Infact it was too great to be true.
thats surprising - plenty of out of focus shots
A great review thanks. I didn’t see the film in Imax like most of the people that will see the film. I would like to but far away and fully booked theatre. The focus was a major issue for me. Why shoot IMAX and have grossly soft shots?
They shot very quickly and the turn around at the lab was a couple of days so hard for them to reshoot. The decision to shoot wide open (a current trend) may look romantic in an IMAX theatre but took me out of the story in a regular theatre.
I loved Oppenheimer, both as a film and catching it in 70mm Imax. Thanks for your video. I noticed that so much of the film was slightly letterboxed, and didn't understand why until later hearing your explanation that perhaps half of it was shot in regular 70mm. I didn't consciously notice the lower resolution for those shots, but probably that's why sometimes I was less impressed with the format's image that at other times. I too noticed a few out-of-focus shots, which were distracting to me as I also think they were not intentional. There is another thing that reflects your idea that even 70mm Imax is not perfect, and I have not noticed this discussed in print or YT videos: the composition, in terms of cinematography, is compromised when viewing the Imax full-frame shots in this film, because, as I understand it, both the camerawork and the editing were done with a non-Imax 70mm widescreen aspect ratio in mind. I agree that this was the right choice, as widescreen is the way the vast majority of people see this film. The top and/or bottom of each full frame image had to be disposable. For those privileged to see it in 70mm Imax, the full frame makes the experience more immersive in a great way, just at the expense of the total composition of those shots. But this is nitpicking. And I don't think the focus and composition issues are involved in the more specialized and exclusive films (e.g. Everest) for the original Imax venue: science and natural history museums.
Yea def. Wasn’t all imax
I'm going to see it in 70mm copy print (not Imax though, the only place in Europe is London and I'm french) tomorow. With such a big and expansive format I suppose they couldn't afford to do many takes. The only time I shot with 35mm for a projet it's what happened to me too, it was a simple plan but we had just enough for two takes. Also misfocus is not tied to movies shot with film, with digital poorly focused shots make it to the final edit because the director assumed they were the best ones - albeit out of focus. Also, only videographers and photographers spot them immediatly, most of the audience won't really mind if they are hooked by the movie. I don't say it's an excuse to poor work though... That said, 70mm projections are worthed just by themselve and require a cinema with a skilled crew. I've seen Kubrick's 2001 and Tarantino's Eightful Eight in Paris (at l'Harlequin and La Cinémathèque) a few years ago and these were amazing experiences.
Yea 70mm will be amazing as well. I want to go see a 5 perf print so I can truly appreciate that too
I have seen the movie on 70mm 5-perf which I enjoyed thoroughly. The projection was super clean, no dust or lines and only 1 single gate wobble where the film was spliced. Very recommended alternative to imax 15p. Also I did not notice the out-of-focus shots, I guess on 15-perf it's much more noticeable because of the cropped and zoomed in film stock.
Why do you say that the 5/70 image was "stretched" to fill the 1:43:1 aspect ratio of native 15/70? Clearly the aspect ratio changes back and forth throughout the movie.
Correct, but 5/70 is physically smaller in all dimensions, not just vertically, so it has to be blown up further so you don’t end up with a tiny picture on the screen surrounded by black bars. As a result, the image is expanded to fill the horizontal space (along with some, but not all, of the vertical space). This does, however, make the 70mm’s inferior resolution more obvious.
@@zaashtill1542 Ah okay, gotcha. Thank you.
He mentioned in the video that this was his first time seeing a film on IMAX, and let me just say the 5/70 looks SO much better than switching back and forth between 15/70 and 35mm like we got in The Dark Knight, Rises, and Interstellar. The difference in quality use to be truly glaring. 35mm not only looks drastically lower in resolution, but the depth of the image is shockingly flat. Like all of a sudden you feel like you're looking at this flat image on a screen instead of looking through the screen into the world of the film. It's like switching back and forth between SD and Blu Ray.
Anyway, all of that is just to say Oppenheimer looks a lot better than what we used to get. Maybe one day we'll get a film 100% on 15/70 somehow.
Some say the 5 perf image isn’t blown up or zoomed in - it really did appear that way since the 5 perf took of the majority of the imax screen which it isn’t supposed to given its aspect ratio. This is just my visual memory tho not fact
@@tylerjhunter That’s interesting. I didn’t get to see those movies on film, but it must’ve been an experience! Maybe I’m being a bit too optimistic, but from what I’ve heard, Christopher Nolan and Jordan Peele have been working with IMAX to develop smaller, but more importantly, quieter 15/70 cameras, which would-in theory-make it possible to film an entire movie in 15 perf IMAX, but we’ll have to wait and see.
S U P E R B analysis of the 15 perf and 5 perf 70mm formats! AAAAA+!
Thanks
The only reason why I wanted to see this film was to see it in full top to bottom imax lol
Yea go watch the imax image. It’s incredible
tenet had lots of shallow focus and its very hars to watch on the big screen. on my oled at home its great
ahh yea i see
Yessss. There are a couple of shots with downey jr in b&w that he was out of focus.
Yea
Great video, very informative. I was lucky/unlucky enough to see this is 70mm and it BROKE half way through. BUT, they then did 4k laser right after and I knew there would be a difference, but I didn't know it would be that significant. Even the 5 perf on actual film is just an entirely different experience than 4k. If there is a theater near you that has 70mm, go!
ouch! sucks that happened but glad they had a fast action plan
I viewed this movie both on 5perf 70mm film and digital. I noticed the difference immediately. On 70mm film the movie had much more contrast and looked more 3D. In other words it was more in-depth. Digital looked flatter and had a more neutral contrast which I think because it was a scan from the negatives instead of a physical copy. The prints go through the ECP-2E developing process, which might give more contrast than the original negatives that went through the ECN-2 process. The screen was the same size for film and digital but I noticed the change in grain and colors more on the digital projector than the film. I think the reason for this had to do with grain being transferred on a scan versus the IMAX film being compressed to normal 70mm film, which is less noticeable than stretching the grain to IMAX 70mm because the image is being forced to show more detail instead of less. Finally, unlike digital projectors which are silent, the film projector could be heard in the background which was really cool to hear especially when it started up for the first time after the digital previews, indicating that you were about to watch an actual film. There was also a bit of flicker from the film projector which didn’t happen with the digital. All of which added to the experience of watching a film on film. I have my own Super 8 projector that I watch movies I have made on film, but to see a professional Hollywood production on a huge screen and 12k resolution from a film that is 8 times bigger than a small 8mm movie blew me away. It was an experience like no other!
Yea I’d be curious to see the digital copy one day