Loud sound of IMAX 15/70 film cameras rolling 

why are you surprised at this? would a professional be surprised at the imax camera noise? Did you ever screw with 8mm in filmschool? I'm probably older than you; my expectation was that it would have made more noise. The IMAX projector is loud. The IMAX camera makes noise. Do you think that noise is 'loud'? Read the dictionary if you're not sure. That's what it's there for.

Modern movies are all commercial garbage with over done grading but nice to see they still use real cameras.

@@illygahwhy are you mad? People are enjoying this format and they are not loud but compared to modern digital cameras it is certainly different. No need to get upset

😅 But is makes no sense 🤣

are you sure? 😂

@@johndo9648 it's a joke bud

“I can’t hear you!!!! But we’re rolling!!!”

thats why the budgets are always $100M+

@@Shrek_Has_Covid19 yes, they can afford it, but it’s still painful 😭

Still, I am glad they shoot on film, because thanks to them, that particular film stock is still cheaper than others and I can use it for photos.

@@malypavel25 you shoot on imax film stock?

My Friend from My Zero Waste Community!

a lens cap or something from the camera flys off too around 1:28

@@wisef00l76 DAMN, I didn't even catch that.

​@@wisef00l76 also at 1:48

​@@180_S those are tire blowers

@@wisef00l76 Gotta give something for the VFX team to fix.

ADR works but it can become very expensive

@@smartduck904 what is ADR ?

@@pedroesteves3018 Audio Dialogue Replacement.

Automated Dialogue Replacement

@@pedroesteves3018 Essentially, you bring the actors into a sound studio and lip sync their lines

I know this is a 10mo old comment, but Nolan has said that with Oppenheimer, they did a sound take immediately after they were done capturing the video, allowing them to get the emotions of the moment without having to deal with the loud noise from the IMAX camera. I can imagine this is the case with a majority of IMAX films that employ the camera in dialogue scenes.

​@@austinbartnicki1385That's a pretty common thing, it's called a wild track. It's also used for shots that are quite wide and without close ups for the dialogue, or in case that something went wrong during the take if you are shooting on film

Consume movies and get excited for next movies?

It costs $400,000 to fire this weapon. For 12 seconds.

nah, a frame is closer to $0.5 ish If the frames were $100 a pop, one minute of film would be a cool $144000...

@@fiskfisk33 it could be $100 because then the film would be around $25m+ in imax film alone which isn't crazy considering blockbusters have 200m+ budgets

@@SafetyLucas Welcome to Team Fortress 2. After 9 years in development, hopefully it will have been worth the wait.

@@justinv.535 The majority of the budget goes on cast salaries.

Yeah, I'd pay for an "IMAX Special Addition" Blu-ray where they give you that option.

Some of Christopher Nolan's films has IMAX scenes

@@MrViper7121 which one

@@asatuduatiga Dunkirk, tenet, the dark knight trilogy, interstellar, etc

@@MrViper7121 thanks

that as well as the fact that these BTS clips were likely color graded by an expert

​@dehydrated plant Since around the last five years, there's a misconception about cinematic. Just shots on a gimbal, with a lut and black widescreen borders added aren't cinematic and on top it's all the same boring content without an actual story. Also the reason why i don't watch a video with the word "cinematic" in the title.

@dehydrated plant hahaha of course those directors are seen most frequently... you would hope that actual aspiring filmmakers would have taken interest is directors a little more niche than nolan and fincher...

70mm IMAX film is about 2 or 3 times the image quality, best way to see it is a diagram showing the resolution of the RED cameras etc compared the the IMAX, the amount of extra detail you get is huge

Ain’t no way you’re comparing professional cinematic grade video cameras to your standard mirror less or dslr camera 😂 I shoot with the canon r3. A professional well I guess now mirrorless camera. The video would be absolutely trash when blown up and used in a movie theatre

I was just going to post the question as to why is this particular film camera generating so much noise. You explained it. Thanks!

There really is nothing like an IMAX frame. I got the privilege of shooting 65mm 5219 in a Panavision system last year, and that was uniquely spectacular with respect to the image it produced, but I know even that would pale in comparison to full 15-70. Maybe some day 😜

Thanks for this insight! 👍 Always fascinating to hear the inner workings

Thanks for sharing

What is blimping an IMAX film camera?

I cant believe he committed suicide, I can’t believe he committed suicide

It's nice that movies make so much money

@@piersonmcwayne1136 Who?

@@cbennoes not all movies makes a bunch of money.

@@JacobJake7 It's a reference to one of Neil Breen's films.

Lmaao

Why?

Same!

Ive always wondered what Imax cameras smell like... maybe we can get a video on that next

And the answer is, "like any other camera that uses film stock"

​@@AudioJellyfish Because Christopher Nolan said Imax cameras are impractical for shooting dialogue scenes as they are too noisy. Having never heard a film camera in operation, Imax or otherwise, I was intrigued and this video answered the question 🙂

i remmeber hearing that just the film stock costs around 1500$ for 3 minutes of footage.

More pressure for sure

​@@giuliorasi2711 my guess would be much more unless they get good deals on film. IMAX is basically a motion picture medium format which from a point of view of an amateur film photographer like me sounds insane. I shoot medium format and with colour film it's about 2$ per frame just the film price, not talking about lab costs. If they shoot 30fps it's 3600$ per minute, 7200$ for 60fps, that's if they paid consumer prices. Can't imagine them paying less than 1/2 of that so... Yeah

@@giuliorasi2711 It's anywhere between 700-1500$ per minute

@@geuros $2/frame tells me you're shooting bigger than 6x6, or have more expensive film prices. I just got a box of Velvia 50 for ~$80, so that should be about $1⅓ per shot in 6x6.

Never mind the recordists! I feel bad for the dialogue editors!

Thank you 😂

Away? Towards you, you mean. Box office profitssss

Why would I care about Jewish billionaires wasting money?

Probably true producers have come up with some pretty creative ways to save money to say the least. From what I've seen usually about everything goes over budget. There's usually never any way to regain a large amount of money but if you stay on top of everywhere you can save a little here and there in the end it can add up to a lot. I disagree about thinking of film as money and rattling away from you. Film is the magic in movie making it captures life and light in a way video doesn't. If you are going to make a movie it starts with film and that is priceless. Anybody debating or making the choice to shot videos is in a business.

Very alive

Film is very much alive

Imo, film is still better than digital 9 times out of 10.

Film has a great look that’s hard to achieve on digital

Much better dynamic range, especially high contrast scenes where white could be blown out using digital but film can handle it. Breaking Bad is filmed on film for eg

So you are saying that Almost every dialogue scenes shooted by imax camera is re-recorded?? Thats so amazing

@@임지훈-w9u Not "almost" - EVERY! But it's not that amazing - this used to be standard practice in all location shooting, and is still very common today for any number of reasons. Look at the credits of any movie you go to today, and when you start to see "ADR" team members that stands for "Automatic Dialog Replacement" and it is a necessary component of every movie, IMAX or not. It's just that with a format like IMAX you know going in that all the dialog will have to be post-recorded.

ADR is shit. We are using Panavision cameras on scenes with dialogue.

that’s thanks to sound booths and foley artists

The dialogue scenes is always shot on Panavision Super 70, or Arriflex 765.

I did not know this since I've never been graced with an IMAX production - this sounds as if all production sound would be only for reference !

Just one question: How much tape on ana de armas’s dress?

The shutter and film feed system is working a similar way for both a camera and a projector so thats why they sound similar. This goes for all movie film cameras, not just IMAX ones and this is why these cameras make a projector rattle sound when operating. Its because they use the same mechanics as a projector, just a bit more compact to be able to carry it around. The only difference more or less being that the camera records the film and the projector plays it back. I guess IMAX ones are especually loud however. I know the projectors are quite noisy with that huge rotor/vacuum shutter system and I guess the cameras also have some similar such mechanism inside them yet more compact.

"resolution"

film is way better than digital. Film has HD and UHD resolutions.

Why do you love it? You have checked out of reality?

Around 3 mins per spool if I remember correctly

@@itsyaboi5861 and that's what, 100ft?

@@counterfit5 180 seconds times 24 frames per second times 70 mm is 300m, or just under 1000feet? I think at least

@@brreeaad yep

Convert ✡️🕎🇮🇱

@@Jfxkxdvrvr oy vey

It sounds like an S54

@@ronkerjake1 im pretty sure it’s an Aston Martin shell on top of a E46 chassis so I guess you are right

not a bird, something fell of front car second before and started rolling.

No time to die was not even bad due to this - it's bad due to the abolsute nonsense ending.

​@@DmitriyDarkJoneywhat inconsistent screenplay? I didn't like the ending but it seemed touching i guess .

Make sure it is not imax digital

That’s a very good observation. I’m not an action flick fan bc of how they butcher *real* action w/ over the top editing, including sound. I feel it’s counterintuitive in making the movie more engaging.

Wow. Never heard of anyone who didn’t watch movies.

@@themtgdude486 Well now you have. There's too much propaganda and brainwashing in these Hollywood films for the masses.

He doesn't need to because they're not recording audio anyway

rolling MOS- "mit out sound"

On the plus side, the Melbourne one is the world's largest isn't it?

I remember the one we used to have here in Perth at the City West building. That's been gone a LONG time now, but it was cool.

@@martyowens1430 yeah i remember hearing about that one as well. Seriously what has Australia got against IMAX cinemas

Just drive there lol

@@dilanrajapaksha Australia doesn't have anything against IMAX, it's just extremely costly and hard to profit from because of the running requirements for the IMAX-Specific AV. The only reason the IMAX is still here in Melbourne is because its adjunct to the Museum, which show a lot of scientific films, especially for school programs, i remember going there 3 times just because of school (multiply 3 or 4 by the current number of students in Melbourne and that's the amount of tickets sold to schools over a 12-year span), plus the state government invests heavily in the arts and education so it's likely subsidized by them too.

💯 A film shot on a Samsung phone can be equally or more engaging by its story & dialogue than big budget ones. I literally fall asleep trying to watch 007, transformers, etc

This is from a commenter above who worked on the james bond film "no time to die" he said: A LOT of ADR. So they record the dialogue in post and recreate all the sounds you would hear on the screen

digitally removed. always.

Yes it’s actually insane how much they can fix in post

they likely have clean plates so this wouldn't be difficult to remove

@@EthanfromEngland- Exactly.

@@EthanfromEngland- Unless the jib arm is motion controlled, which by the way the guys catching it isn't, you're not going to be able to get a clean plate from a moving camera. They're going to have to take sections and recreate it. Not easy.

Calm down, dude. There's nothing 'professionalism' about not getting distracted by a sound you hear frequently.

@@privacyrules clearly u r not working in movie industries

​@@dollayx8 stop putting actors and actresses on a pedastal. Nobody gets distracted by noises they hear frequently.

@@privacyrules go try it by urself

@@dollayx8 I've worked plenty of jobs with loud noises present. It doesn't interrupt my work because I heard them frequently. Stop the shilling.

Yep - 200,000 feet of film rattling away on a movie. Then look at processing cost differences. As digital has gotten up to IMAX quality, the argument for imax is diminishing rapidly. And we have IMAX quality digital cameras now in my view basically. That said, those things generate insane data files if you want the quality cranked up to imax levels, but it can be dealt with.

I love IMAX, it is an amazing format. I actually have an IMAX cell from Interstellar, and it’s incredible how much detail you can see in it. But I’ll be honest, I have an ulterior motive to want IMAX to still be shot on film. I am an analog photographer who slits the 65mm stock used in these cameras to make 61.5mm film used in 120/220 still cameras. Keep shooting IMAX, it keeps the film stupidly cheap!

@@mcb187 How does them using film makes film cheaper for you?

@@unliving_ball_of_gas bulk production. Photography needs way less film than movie production does, therefore it can be prohibitively expensive to produce film for photography only. It was Hollywood, who saved film from dying after digital camera becoming so accessible for mass market. Without Hollywood, the film could have died. But it's alive and thriving.

I guess since the pattern is so predictable/in an even frequence that you can remove it in post. Especially nowadays using software.

Audio is recorded in the studio.

@@azoique No, you can't. You have to dub these scenes, if dialogue is in. But there are blimped cameras who are much quieter.

They record sound separately in general for all scenes and sync it up in the edit. Cinema cameras don't record sound along with video So in quiet scenes they just don't record sound.

If the scene contains “narrative sound” (such as dialogue), they will record it as a guide track, helping in post / ADR to get the best timing, intonation, emotion, whatever. It needs to fit the image and having the original audio helps. In fact, animation film starts with recording the dialogue first and then syncing the image to the dialogue.

@@tonybutweird3 This is untrue. I work in film sound. We always record sound, making a great effort to try and get usable dialogue with a bunch of noise issues like cameras, lights, wind machines, planes etc. Unfortunately with IMAX cameras they would need to ADR most of the words since the cameras are so noisy, but our recording is stgill a good guide track. The only time we don't record sound is when its without actors. Stuff like establishing shots of buildings are usually MOS *no sound.

@@jackeyres5103 yeah for IMAX usually it's ADR. I mean on a separate thing like a boom mic or something. Dw, I'm familiar with sound work. 😅

And when you are spending a fortune on film anyway, you are not going to cut costs on any of the other things needed. Imagine shooting a cheaply made set on film with the resolution of IMAX.

There's definitely some truth to what you're saying. The physical properties of some of our cameras and lenses have forced filmmakers to shoot in a certain way that we now associate with "cinematic". That is, relatively slow, physically stabilized camera moves, protected highlights, and a fairly large minimum focus distance typically result in shots that feel professional and high budget. The one main place you might struggle with recreating the IMAX look digitally would be in matching the noise levels and resolution of the footage. Every IMAX shot I've seen has been very clean.

@@thatcherfreeman between modern high res cameras, invisible AI denoising and upscaling, and the ability to accurately match grain and colors to film stock, it seems to me that anyone still using film for their movies are probably mostly doing it for emotional reasons.

​@@AliasA1 ​​​​​​With all do respect, I am going to have to go with a "nah" on that one. Without even mentioning IMAX, I think that even "lowly" 35mm film still looks better than digital 9 times out of 10. The only times I've seen digital footage truly surpass film is stuff shot with the Sony Venice 2. Most other digital cameras are "almost there" when it comes to emulating film -- but fall just short somehow. I can't put my finger exactly on _why_ that is -- but I think it has something to do with dynamic range and color. Also, it seems most filmmakers have no idea on how to emulate the "film look" correctly in post and many modern movies have that tell-tale "digital" look. (Overly sharp, sterile and lifeless.) Can digital footage be tweaked to look very close to film? Yes. Do most filmmakers take the time to painstakingly do that? No. Another thing I've noticed is that most modern movies are lit very "flat" and seem to rely almost entirely color correction to achieve certain looks -- rather than how it was done practically through colored lighting or filters in the past. (Yet another thing that cheapens the look of many modern films.) Everytime I watch a 90's blockbuster that I haven't seen before -- I am often blown away by how much better the cinematography from that era was on average compared to 90% of today's big-budget films.

​@@Skrenja I don't understand this response. What is with the "nah"? "Can digital footage be tweaked to look very close to film? Yes" This is what I said. If a director wants to make a movie that looks like a 90's blockbuster, they can. It would not just look very "close" to film, it would be more or less fully indistinguishable by scientific equipment. We're able to strip film footage from any of what you'd think made it look like film, turning it into a fully neutral representation of light with no artifacts or grain. We can do the same with digital footage, and CGI already comes out like that by default. We can then reapply all that made the film look like film to anything we want. It would and is not very difficult or painstaking, it's done all the time. This is not a technical issue, it is an emotional one. What you want is not movies shot on film, it's movies that look like they were. That's fair, but it's not something magical about the technology. That all being said, while I can believe you think modern movies look "Overly sharp, sterile and lifeless" and have a "digital" look, I think that's mostly placebo. You sound almost exactly like audiophiles complaining about digital audio sounding sterile and lifeless, when it can easily be proven that it has nothing with the digital part. People fawn over tape hiss, not realizing that the digital version is literally mathmatically identical, and can't be distinguished when doing blind tests where you don't already know which sample of audio you're rooting for. I also have a hard time taking the whole "modern movies are lit flat" thing very seriously, to the point that I wonder if it's an issue with the equipment you're watching it on? Many of the same cinematographers that worked in the 90's are still around and still doing the same work they were back then, working with their own eyes without looking at color grading (Color grading is a post process, the people lighting on set do not see the movie with color grading), and movies have WILDLY varied styles, pushing to extremes in all directions.

She didn't have that much to "contain," though.

Lol

Right? Seems like a huge waste of time and money to continue using film.

I'm not saying the digital isn't good, it's great, but it does look different. I'm not saying 1 is better than the other but they do look different

8k on a 35mm sensors... ? this thing has a massive frame and when projected in a theather it looks way better then 8k , i mean 70mm is like 10x the size of a 35mm digital sensor

@@emko333 RED Monstro 8K uses a full frame 35 megapixel sensor not Super35 and boasts 17 stops of dynamic range. The storage is cheaper, editing is easier and cheaper too. There are also 12K caneras already on the market for consumers.

​@@solodagci Although, film doesn't have a resolution, IMAX film is approximated to have a resolution of around 16K and it is like 4times of 8k. So digital doesn't even come close. And all that detail shows in a 70mm imax theatre.

massive film frame give you more detail and when projected it looks amazing there is no camera with a sensor that large plus the depth of field is smaller

@@emko333 as a professional photographer, I deem shallow DOF overvalued. There have been many movies here recently, where shallow DOF was used as a cloak to cover lack of background decorations. The focus is only on actor, evertything else is blurred. Case in point: latest John Wick movie - it's a bokeh galore. Stop down that damn aperture, show me the city, show me the decoration, show me the entourage. Can't see any in paper-thin DOF nowadays. Everything is being filmed with a green screen. The art of building the decorations or filming in real world is becoming scarce, thus taking away a huge chunk of atmosphere. Edit: I'll say more. I have Carl Zeiss R-Biotar 100 mm f/0.73 lens in my possession. It's a very cool and heavy thing to play with, but to be honest, the novelty of ultra-shallow DOF wears out quickly. You still have to focus on other artistic aspects, that IMO are much more important than overaching blur to separate the subject from the background.

@@tweed0929 i am talking about the fact you can use more wider lenses and still have a dreamy dof, have you shot on larger formats before? it just has this feel to it that smaller format can't replicate, but there are always pros and cons, on what your subject is and what your vision is of the scene

@@emko333 pardon my French, but this "dreamy DOF" and "feel" is made up unquantifiable bullshit. There's a reason why in digital age Super35 format (APS-C) is still the king - it is sufficient to say everything a filmmaker wants to say. I've been in IMAX many times and never saw anything so jaw-droppingly amazing as most are trying make it to be. Shallow DOF is fine to have where it fits, but more often than not it is just an excuse. Raising decorations takes a lot of searching in historical archives and huge time and effort to actually build these. Today everyone can slap T/1.2 lens on the bayonet and BAM! Shallow DOF fixes all of that! Who needs atmosphere? Who needs entourage? BOKEH BALLS! BLUR! YEAH, BABY! T/2.0 on a full frame camera gives you plenty of blur. How much of a blur do you really need? Paper-thin DOF is boring.

Overdub

@@Doorito_ that makes sense. Honestly would be a testament to their acting skills that I've never noticed that

Forex trading is really profitable, investing in it now will be the wisest thing to do especially with the current rise in btc= and other stocks.

@kittanonjoomcom3852 Can you help me out to recover all that I have lost while trading with unprofessional traders

@kittanonjoomcom3852 Am So pleased Seeing people talked about him on RU-vid, this was exactly how I got the recommendation about Mr Richard A. Blair Fx last year, At first I was a bit skeptical but eventually I gave him a trial with an investment of $1000, and truly he delivered, till date am still investing with him from Canada C here!

@@lauramatthew2232 I thought he was a scammer but believe me after meeting him up first time at Miami's Bitcoin Conference in United State. Last year. He changed my ideology

@Emily Smith Does he offer mentorship tutorial programs for newbies?