The original plan for Star Wars episode IX was to shoot it all on 65mm film, back when Colin Trevorrow was directing. Not sure if JJ is going to follow through on this but I would love to see it happen and for the film to get a wide 70mm film release.
This was told to me by a buddy that worked at an IMAX theater in Iowa. He said it's a standard 35mm film, but instead of being used to store pictures it holds six optical audio tracks that are read by an optical reader on a second 'projector'. Apparently that's how it used to be done and now the vast majority of IMAX theaters have a digital audio track played off of a hard drive that is syncned up to the 70mm film stock. He always insisted that the optical audio sounded better and called it 'true' IMAX.
@@HighOrbitMediaVideos I have some pictures for you if you like. Made in the projectionbooth of Fleet Science center in San Diego. It was then called (1980) Reuben H. Fleet Theatre and Science Center. Not so long ago that was the oldest, still running Omnimax projector in the world. It has one on a picture. Btw... thats me standing next to it
Few years back i was helping on a presentation at a local cinema, my role was just to control a laptop connected upto a Barco 4K projector. But the real enjoyment for me was being up in the projection booth while a 35mm print was shown. Including getting to see a projector switch during a show (no large spool system at this cinema) and chatting to the projectionist. Who whenever there was a very very subtle change in the sound of the projector knew exactly what was causing it and if something needed adjusting, oiling etc. so sad imo that with all the large cinemas using RealD digital projectors now (at least thats whats standard where i live) that the art of projectionists is vanishing.
I once used a regular dvd of a movie (not a bluray) to perform a test-run on a CP2000 2K projector. The whole purpose of the test-run was to see whether or not the dvd's SD quality would be an issue for the average moviegoer audience, and guess what ... no one ever knew it was a regular dvd that they were watching and there was no complaints. Everyone walked out happy and it was a successful night at the movie theater. Good times, good times.
@@fastica : That was my second plan, but I was eventually "phased out" of the job, as well as my other guys who I supervised, once the projectors became fully automated -- we basically got bullied out of our jobs. It was terrible. Anyhow, the dvd's SD quality looked like a new 35mm film-print on the big screen. It took some time to tweek the image so it would fit the screen properly. I had to create customized buttons on the TPC in order to select either FLAT or SCOPE aspect ratios. I ran a optical cable from the dvd player to the dolby sound-rack for 5.1 surround sound and it worked perfectly. Again, the audience had no idea they were watching a regular dvd and it still makes me chuckle when I think about it. Ah, I miss those days so much.
I actually don't know the answer to that. I assume so unless those DVDs can hold much more that 4.7gb. But I would bet the audio is compressed quite a bit to fit.
Didnt know that imax would just use a dvd for the audio, maybe it was a high capacity ones or blu ray because 4.7gb wouldnt be enough to fit dolby atmos inside. Ty btw :)
Thought they split long form movies between multiple platters rather than store all 1200lbs on a single platter. Can't believe they replaced that projector with only 4k. The memory of 12k film only exists in lion memory.
Dumb question, but would it be possible for the film to be packaged and sent in a single platter-size reel? I'm sure there's obvious reasons for not doing that, such as weight and stress on the film, but it is at all feasible?
Good question. They actually can be shipped on one giant reel and it happens frequently. There are specially made boxes for shipping finished films like the ones in the video. Of the films we play at our theater, most of them are 45-50 minute documentaries, so most boxes made for shipping are built for that size film. I've never seen a box made for a feature length film like Interstellar. But we often will send a film we're done playing to another theater so they can show it.
Once it gets wider than a standard shipping pallet, it becomes exponentially more expensive to ship. What you can do it split it up into 3 smaller platters that fit within pallet diemnsions.
@@HighOrbitMediaVideos I saw that too. But I also saw "while 70mm film has the equivalent of 18,000 lines of digital resolution (more like 12,000 in reality)". Whatever that means.
I think a typical run is between 700-1200 times. That's mainly because of the length of the contract to show one, not necessarily because the film is wearing out. But once a film is done, yes it is destroyed. We shoved one into a trash compactor once and it broke the compactor. Super strong film. It's now cut up and recycled I think.
Do not forget to scan the film negative front and back !!! So it turns out 2 frames with different focus, where objects standing next to each other will have +1 object in focus and + remove micro scratches, and if we differentiate 1 frame scanned from two sides, you can get an absolutely clean frame, like with digital cameras!
Hi silly question but you show a film being spliced together, what happens when the print has to be returned to the film owner. As the film weight now is so heavy, I would imagine the process in reverse ?
I've seen documentaries on a dome theater before, but I can't image an actual movie on one. Quite motion sickness inducing I bet! Also, what happens to the movies once they are no longer being played?
These reels get sent to us well in advance so it would be hard to imagine getting to the day before opening and still missing reels. But yes, if that did happen, we would cancel.
There aren't 4000 70mm theaters in the world. I think there's less than 20 actually. They're typically sent in several boxes of small reels and then are built at the theater.
Now, I wonder, what if somebody used such long 70mm film to print on each frame black and white dots to represent the binary data of a huge data stream, say, the backups of 500 GB laptop HDD/SSD drives? How much capacity in Petabytes one such long film can have?
It would be more worthwhile for data storage to make it into magnetic tape Funny enough you DID hit on how magnetic storage works its just the "dots" are areas that are either magnetized or not magnetized
was an easy job, but don't miss the making up a film Sadly we never had a slicer ( /\/\/\/\/\/\ fiormed cutting) für the 35mm cinema hehe, sure the put together parts would been running better thru the projector, like in the imax
Can you tell me will the digital projector be permanently suspended in the air (exept for maintaince) or will it have to come down after each show like when you had film?
It takes about 30-40 minutes at most to build up a 35mm feature on a platter. So I simply do not believe it takes 2 days to build up a 70mm feature. I would estimate 60-90 minutes.
Mike, each reel of IMAX 70 is ONLY 3 MINUTES. So there are 6-7 IMAX REELS to ONE REEL of 35mm or 70mm 5 perf. You do the math. So yes, it can take 2 days to build up a print in IMAX.
The issue (beyond the fact that there's no "correct" way to equate digital resolution and film resolution) is that the actual resolution and picture quality of a given reel of film will depend on the speed (ISO) of the stock, how well it was shot, how well it was printed, how many copies away from the original negative it is, how old it is and how heavily it's been used, etc. The advantage to digital is its relative consistency, but under optimal conditions the general consensus is that 35mm film requires at least a 4K scan to fully capture its detail without artifacts. An 8K scan of 15/70mm IMAX film would certainly fall short of capturing all the detail. tl;dr: film CAN be shit, but when it's done correctly it certainly isn't.
@@gr3473 you're wrong. Film silver particles are so small that they can hold incredible detail. 7cm film is so high quality detail you need to scan it in 16+ K.
@@moow950 They actually integrate both projectors into a single machine. It's got two lamps, and the film transport rotor has two levels that each holds a separate film print. They physically can't get out of sync, as long as they're synced properly during threading.
Very intersection video. I can see why it might be more cost effective to use a digital projection system but pixels are artificial. For those that have a budget for film and dedication to the workflow film is the only way to go. Digital does have its place for a few things.
They normally trim the excess off but then part of the splicing machine has a blade like a paper cutting lade that precisely trims the film when they need it.
I'll take the kind of huge curved panoramic image that was once produced by 70MM Ultra Panavision ( considered as single lense Cinerama )over the huge Imax rectangle any day . Why don't they get with the program and create a kind of Imax Ultra Panavision for gigantic wide curved screens ............THAT would ROCK ! ! !
steve gaines No IMAX is better Because the images is bigger and taller. More Square aspect ratios are more inmersive, Cinema just change it because they didnt want the same aspect ratio as TV. A Lot of Imax Movies example The Dark Knight are framed for Cinemascope 2.39 but In Imax they give you more information above and it looks like kind of Virtual Reality.
Did you ever see 2001 :A Space Odyssey when it first opened up in cinerama or the first few ultra panavision cinerama presentations at the Cinerama Dome during it's first few years ? That's the kind of deeply curved panoramic peripheral vision immersive quality I'm referring to . I don't see , with the kind of Imax digital technology available today why they can't create that kind of panoramic splendor on an even grander scale than ever before .
The thing is, IMAX is about a BIGGER picture, not wider. 2.7:1 may look amazing on a big movie theatre screen but is a headache to watch on a TV, which is why people don't do it anymore.
The only limit you have with uncompressed resolution is the Hard Drive space. It would be like ripping a cd into an uncompressed WAV file. Yeah it’s big; but I’d have more options with an uncompressed video file that would give me the same resolution. Far cheaper, far quicker, and less space to utilize.
Scott Baldwin How is that possible? You can’t extract more detail from a 35mm negative than there is available . Blowing it up to 70mm doesn’t give a higher resolution of the source.
