@@culan_SCP that's my big question. When they retire, will there still be people who push for it as much as they do? Those who didn't grow up using film to make their home movies
no.. and its very unfortunate... the projects I remember enjoying the most were the ones I shot S16mm.. there really is something special to it when its done that way.. and since its no longer a medium for the artist.. and since its no longer an industry directed out of passion.., but rather simplified into an industry looking to sell a soul-less product.., the people in charge will have no tolerance for anything that isn't more cost effective.. the medium of film is just one aspect.., practical effects vs CGI.., having international appeal (good guy vs bad guy. action.. bam bam.. every country can understand it) ...etc.. forced political/social angles.. oversaturation of content from social media / Internet availability, streaming services.. there's a countless number of things that were made to benefit us.., but only bring it down.. if I knew it would turn out like this.., i probably would have went to school for something else lol.., ( sry, its a lil too early in the morning for this much negativity i imagine.. haha)
@@FrameVoyager Or able to push for it. If the studio doesn't put particular value on a director that pushes for film they can easily fire them and go with someone else.
@@FrameVoyager i think there will always be some people who prefer film over digital, i myself prefer digital and cgi over practical and film, due to its accessibility, you can pick up a zve10 for £600 (in the uk) and take cinematic shots and make you own short movies, whereas the expense of film, and its lack of quality in the budget segment. But i do understand the physical nature if film and why some people may still prefer it over digital.
I saw Oppenheimer in 70MM IMAX, and I solidified my belief that if theaters want people to show up that IMAX has to become the new industry standard for how to shoot and exhibit a motion picture.
@@danielhenderson8316 I had to endure sub title pixels to see Oppenheimer in theater. The screen was such an utter crap that it is really not worth the money.
@@fulconandroadcone9488 I went to an IMAX w/Laser showing and had no issues, but the regular cinema screen are worse than what most people have at home.
Or Dolby Cinema, it’s a more wholistic audiovisual theatrical experience. Pairing 4K laser projection with Dolby Atmos can achieve amazing cinematic effects.
There are 30 cinemas in the world that were allocated 15 / 70MM film reels of Oppenheimer, that number has only shrunk over time. I'm afraid IMAX aren't willing to fund too many films in 1570, and as a result there aren't too many theatres willing to project in the format. Let's hope theirs a renaissance of the use in film in general over time, and then we'll look at the 70mm IMAX format, stepping stones!
While there is some truth in what you say, we still see an improvement over the last 3 Nolan films. Dunkirk had about 20 prints, Tenet had 10 and now it's up to 30, don't forget the 110 70mm and 80 35mm. That's not a lot, but it's an improvement that shows Universal and IMAX are willing to make an effort. They even had to retrain some projectionists for this run. Also, some people seem to really want to see these films on film, judging by the demand, with some theatres being sold out until September.
Yep! I really hope not though. There have also been a great number of 35mm films sent around of Oppenheimer as well. So it's not dead. The question is just, will future filmmakers still commit to all of this?
@@Vince-zj8iu Long story short, I think as Frame Voyager is mentioning, is that like any 'investment' you can't rely on putting most of your eggs in one basket. Like many, it's great Nolan is the driving force for IMAX utilisation, but for the format to grow, I do feel that we need more filmmakers utilising the platform, but the logistics and costs of course have limitations of this
Honestly digital is far more vibrant, has more resolution, and repeatability, lets face it just better than film. But if you want that film look for historical type footage, film can't be beat. Film may go away within the next decade or two I project (pun intended), so lets all enjoy it while we can.
I got to see Oppenheimer in 15/70 and it is incredible. I feel very lucky to be near one of the few theaters in the US that screens it in that format. I hope more filmmakers are inspired by Nolan to not only just use film, but also use 70mm
@@dextermorgan1 Do a Google search and you can have the full list. US has some. UK has some. India has some. Canada has some. I think whole China does not have one.
Oppenheimer was the first Nolan film that I saw in 70mm IMAX and WOW. I have never had a theatre experience such as that. Absolutely every bit of the experience is visceral, the images hyper-sharp, and the experience overall leaves you literally speechless; I was speechless for about an hour after watching the film. 70mm IMAX is something that everyone should be able to experience as it is more than a film, it is an experience, an amusement park ride that throws you right into the story. We need more IMAX!
Agree and not agree. Didn't you notice a huge difference in quality between the 70mm/15perf scenes and the dialogue scenes that were filmed on 70mm/5perf.? Dialogies scenes couldn't be filmed on Imax cameras since they are too noisy... For me those dialogue scenes couldn't hold up at all against the real IMAX footage. That was disappointing to me since only 30% of the movie was real 70mm/15perf Imax. Also jumping between two different aspect ratios stressed this difference even more and made the experience less fluid. Let's hope that the new Imax cameras that are on their way will allow a movie to be shot entirely on 70mm/15perf because this is indeed really amazing.
Hyper-sharp? I don’t remember when I saw movie with so many surprising out of focus scenes such as close ups, faces filling whole frame and more…..It makes me ask the question: why use this super complex and expensive materials and cameras if you are unable to focus properly in so many scenes?
@@BlazejMarczak I suppose you had a bad projection than. Nolan often uses a very small depth of field for artistic reasons which sometimes may result in an off-focus moment. But this is an artistic choice which has nothing to do with the format itself.
Let's hope that these new cameras they are developing are quieter lol. Heard that they actually acted out scenes twice. Once on camera and the second time for audio for the specific IMAX parts.
I’m very grateful that the showing at Metreon I saw Oppenheimer in had clearly skilled projectionists, the picture was sharp and filled the screen perfectly, it was amazing
Can confirm that the Metreon IMAX theater in SF has excellent projectionists. I have seen Oppenheimer 3 times there already, and each screening was done with zero issues and the sound of the film projector running during certain scenes was very satisfying.
This is so funny. Back then, film grain, image wobbling, flickering, atrocious image degradation from the negative to the projected positive were considered massive technical defects, but today it's called "beauty".🙃 It's snobbery at it's best!
And that's before you consider the technical difficulties with dealing with film Editing is much more straightforward, so is vfx, distribution Even filming as the camera isn't so loud as to drown out the audio
Wobbling, flickering, and image degradation was a thing back in the 50s lol. But not with film in modern terms. Film has a higher dynamic range compared to digital. Whatever cinemas you went to probably didn’t have the best projectionist.
Digital technologies have always tried first of all to make any process cheaper and simpler, and only then to improve quality. First, it is thanks to film that you have the opportunity to watch the best movies of all time in 4K quality (and even more), just scan the film. The first movies shot on digital cameras fell into the trap and will forever remain in HD quality (2K), only upscaling can turn them into fake 4K. Secondly, the film is still the most reliable way of long-term storage. You can shoot a movie on a digital camera and then scan it onto film and store it. You do not need computers, software support, current codecs. All you will need in 50-100 years is a projector and... film!
I went to see Oppenheimer in 3 perf 70mm in Brisbane. I loved it and I hope to see many more in the future. I hate digital projection and love real film. When done right it’s a magical experience. The black and white film Kodak developed for Oppenheimer looks stunning and bright on film!! Well worth the effort in my opinion ❤ 🎞️
OMG ok, 1. George Lukas was so terrible wrong, it needs an epic scale to register 2. The worst looking Movies in the History of Cinema were, the Star Wars Prequels, Public Enemies and the Avatar 1 Real Scenes. - Horrible Videolook with blown out Highlights everywhere - All shot with these Nightmare Videolook Sony F900 F950 Cameras etc. instead of using good Film. 3. The Cost Issue is the biggest lie in Cinema Production. Hollywood Production have the Money for using FILM. The Budgets even have grown over the years, with no cost for Film. They just save the Money in their Pockets. The Movies didn’t got better. Way more Money (than needed for Film) is wasted on bad CGI these days! Such a sad Story 4. Today I prefer a 4K high scaned 35mm Movie, than a shot digital Movie. Digital just looks dead, and kind of a low budget Series too. Even today, shooting on Film creates a far more epic look than a 8K digital video (cine) Camera. 5. There is no digital Film Camera, pleas all stop using this Word. It’s Film Cameras and digital high end Video Cameras, not digital Film Cameras. 6. Only with use of heavy grain, and major color „correction“ you get near „living“ Film Quality. Digital has no culture, no good look, it's imitating Film all the Time. 7. Sadly Mission Impossible 7 was the first digital Release of the Series. You see that, the more video like Picture Quality, no magic, and Tom Cruise knows that. The areal shots of the Train suffer all from blown out Highlights/bad Highlight roll of, and digital contrast pixel-corner issues. Only 35mm filmed Movies hold their magic when the are ageing, enough examples for that 8. James Cameron missed the Point completely on film. For high-end Video Game Movies like Avatar, it’s pure CGI anyway. His real Scenes with green Screen look terrible. 9. Tarantino is 100% right 10. Sadly convince has killed true Art Film Magic near completely. Let’s hope for a second Renaissance. For me all these BS Productions today can be released, shown, and erased on digital, as long as true Masterpieces were still produced on analog Film I think both can co-exist
As a guitar player I’ve heard my whole life that tube amps sound better and digital amps are inauthentic knock offs. People who have the money to maintain this old technology always seem to make a point to rub it in your face that you aren’t getting the best, highest fidelity, or the pinnacle of quality. It’s bullshit. When I first started learning I didn’t care about the amp I cared about playing. It’s the same with movies. There will be a kid in a theatre who will resonate with movies shot on digital as much as film that will grow up with a love for movies all the same.
I think we're way beyond the debate of Digital looking artificial and Film having character. Digital can have those qualities and can also look fake. Film can be lovely, but can also look shoddy. Very much a case by case basis.
It's an interesting thing to experience nostalgia, thinking back at all the films I watched growing up, taking for granted the work and effort that went into shooting a particular scene and then the effort involved in delivering it to the silver screen. I miss hearing the clacking sound of the film projector or seeing the massive drive-in theater a few miles down the road that's long since been torn down. The movie industry has faced so much of this over the past 30 years... I miss going to the movie rental store and walking down isle after isle reading the backs of movie boxes to discover movies I had never heard of. If given a choice, I'd gladly go back to those days...
I agree, just having something tangible in general is important for us as humans. We aren't Boltzmann brains, we are holistic creatures, we need to engage our whole body in an activity, not just fire a few synapses in the brain.
@@FrameVoyagerThat’s bullshit. Why “have” to? Makes absolutely no sense. These filmmakers (especially modern filmmakers) don’t shoot on film simply because they don’t want to or don’t know how.
There is no hope for celluloid in the future. The only thing they can do is have camera developers consult with filmmakers Imax and Kodak should develop a CMOS 70mm sensor that can record raw footage like a celluloid reel. It should produce color footage like celluloid. They also need to harness and control color like celluloid and develop a new color algorithm for the Bayer filter sensor to achieve footage that is exact, like film or celluloid.
I saw Oppenheimer in one of the 30 theaters that played it in 70MM IMAX, and I loved it. I love film. I've largely stopped going to theaters in part due to digital. If I can only see a movie digitally, then there's no reason to see a movie in the theater over home. But for something like Oppenheimer, UHD won't match the big screen. If the film industry and theaters want to survive, they need to offer something that competes with a television, just as they did in 1950s with widescreen.
I think for me I like IMAX 70mm and film to be an "event" for specific movies. Kind of keeps the magic of it alive without watering it down too much. For other movies like the Meg 2 I don't want to watch in film haha
@@cicolas_nageYou could not be more wrong, Film will always look different to digital, whether that be the slight shimmer as the film bounces up and down or the flecks of dust and debris that crack and popple on screen, this is something (For better and for worse) that you don’t get with Digital.
@@cicolas_nage well said but that is not how you experience film, while yes technically a perfectly aligned, cleaned and projected film cell might look very similar to a digital frame, in real world use it is quite stark.
I went out of my way to watch Oppenheimer in the only IMAX in my country. My god are they watering down their brand, I could see the pixels, the screen size was average. I know I didnt go to a good one with a 70mm film projector but I thought IMax was IMax until just now and I bet 95% of the general public too.
Same! And sure hope so! The issue is the lack of projectionists and the age of the projectors. IMAX has indicated they might be working on making better projectors which would be a good thing.
I hope you’re right. The last feature film I saw in IMAX was the last instalment of Harry Potter, and it was everything the 15/70 format is not - a dirty multigenerational 35mm print, that looked like it belonged in a suburban multiplex from the 1980s. Or at least that’s what it feels like when an average 20th century image is blown up to IMAX. Maybe we forget how good we have it with 4K Blu-ray on an upscale 8K QD-OLED display with Dolby Vision balancing the HDR. In fact I’m very interested in the day, not too far away, when I will do that with Oppenheimer and judge it critically. The source material is amazing, but so is the display technology (albeit 8K not 18K).
IMAX 15/70 was never meant to become a cinema format let's not forget that. The main point of the 15/70 in Nolan's head was to fight against those noisy Sony & Alexa 2nd gen digital cameras. But now with the advent of 8K cameras and HDR i'm not so sure if a 15/70 frame fairs well against a clear and large digital picture.
For sure, but it does make for an interesting movie going experience. I actually like the taller image look it gives when you see it on film. But I really would only want that like maybe for 5% of films. Others like "Meg 2" I just want to watch on digital haha
IMAX 15/70 being slightly wider than 4:3 that means this is more of an aspect ratio matter than the usual film vs digital rivalry. It is often an overlooked part of his job but I think the way he frames all of these various delivery formats is also fascinating. What you felt during your last visit at an IMAX 15/70 theatre is convenient because the optimal human vision does see the world in a ratio close to 4:3 (Even narrower) so having those huge screens nearly covering your entire sight will indeed do the job quite well as long as the screen is big enough. Now that kind of immersion could feel overwhelming to some which is why Nolan and his operators are framing their shots oddly far away from the subject compared to traditional film makers. I am one of those wondering if the 4:3 ratio might ever come back again in that regard since the ultra wide displays we have today only make sense because our TVs and cinemas are RELATIVELY tiny compared to the full potential of the human sight. You were the one having a glimpse into the future covering that already epic 9x7 camera made by Pawel Acthel using the 4:3 ratio again.
Film projecting in theaters is dying. I went to see Oppenheimer over the weekend but it had to be cancelled since the projector ended up being jammed and died. It couldn't be fixed in the next hour since there are only few 70mm film repairmen in the world. And it will take 3 days just to repair it. These theaters will eventually stop running film projects because of that problem and other financial reasons. For now, let's all try to watch as much remains of film theaters while we also prepare for an age of full digital and a sad eventual end of film cameras in the future.
Yeah that's the issue currently is no R&D being put into the projectors. They are all getting old and not conforming to more modern standards which means fewer and fewer people even know how to run them.
I really really hate to say it, but I don’t think I’ll miss it. I think shooting on film should ALWAYS be an option, but the flicker of Oppenheimer alone was enough to scare me off from film projection for good. I still haven’t seen dual laser imax (or single laser, for that matter), but I have to imagine it looks just as good, if not better.
I do not agree. I saw 4 versions of Oppenheimer. One on Imax 70mm/15perf, one on 70mm5perf, one on digital Imax GT and one on a regular digital projection. I found that digital Imax does not come even close to the Imax70mm/15perf. On a big screen as IMAX and in considering the audience being so close to the screen, resolution does matter! It is as Nolan says: looking through a window. This experience I only felt with the 70mm/15perf. BUT: it has to be stressed that only 30% of the movie has this quality since all the dialogue scenes were filmed on Panavision 70mm/5perf film and than being resized and blown-up to match the 70mm15perf release prints. 70mm5perf is (was) a great format but not for an Imax screen. So, those sequences really fell apart and were not better than the digital Imax. The 70mm5perf on a 2.20/1 screen was great as well since the distance to the screen was accordingly; but not that much better than the regular digital projection. Just my opinion... Let's not forget that the almost aspect ratio of real IMAX (almost square) is essential for the real experience which was intended since its origin back in the early seventies: close to a hugh screen so that you are in the middle of the action not being aware of the borders of the screen. For that goal 4K is really not enough. But yes: 8K digital projectors and in some more years 16K ones will be there: no doubt. For the moment being: IMAX 70mm15perf is not surpassed by any means.
I don't get why folks fixate on screen resolution with IMAX. Film resolution really isn't a thing like it is with digital. A format like film or digital only has to produce enough resolution so your eyes can resolve fine details at the viewing distance you or the audience is expected to be sitting at from the screen. If you are watching on a 70 ft IMAX screen, any resolution that is at least 1080p or higher will basically look identical in terms of sharpness from a viewing distance of 114 ft or further back. Apple coind the term "Retina" for example when Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone 4. The point at which the human with an eye sight of 20/20 can no longer discern the individual pixels that make up the screen. It turns out that phone manufacturers found out that most people tend to naturally hold their phones 12 inches from their faces. So, with digital, to meet the "Retina" criteria on a typical phone, you need a PPI density of 286 or above. So Apple made the iPhone 4 have 326 PPI for good measure. A large theater screen is no different. You only need to go higher than 1080p if you are infact sitting too close to the screen you are watching. The "optimal" viewing distance for a 70 ft display is infact 114 ft. So 1080p is sharp enough for 114 ft and further away. (Hence, why many large digital billboards are only of 1080p resolution.) If you can only sit, say, 70 ft or even say 50 ft away from a 70 ft display, then 4K would be needed. If you go under 45 ft away on a 70 ft display, then 8K would be needed needed so you can't discern the individual pixels that make up the image. So, in reality, the 70mm IMAX film thing is pretty meaningless when 4K would likely look just as detailed. Also, I have heard quite a few people referring IMAX to 8K. Also, 16K just like the new digital display in the all new Las Vegas Spere Amphitheater. (A 366-foot tall structure, by the way) Now, all of a sudden, people are saying 18K. The reality is that film doesn't really have a "resolution" but more of a grain. It's more or less how many artifacts you will start to see as you increase the image size and how much light you pass through it. Cheap films will look bad and have a lot of granularity to it. Perhaps other things like more washed out colors, etc... Good film and larger film can just scale better due to a better manufacturing process and because you can pass more light through it. There are no actual pixels on film. People just throw out guesses to a digital equivalent. The reality is that a 4K digital image scales according to the screen size as well. So the bigger the screen, the further your viewing distance should be. A 65" inch 4K TV has a recommended viewing distance of 9 feet or further back. A 70 ft IMAX sized dream TV 📺 it's recommended viewing distance is 114 ft or further. The closest you could sit to that TV, though, would be 45 ft before you start to see the pixels that make up the image. But who wants to watch a 70 ft screen from only 45 ft anyway? That's not my idea of a good experience. I would like for my neck to not hurt when watching any sized display. And do I think 70 mm IMAX film will go away? It is likely as there are only 30 theaters left as it is. But smaller format films like 35mm may hang around for a bit longer. But also because it's more practical than IMAX for the majority of situations.
When I watch 4K content on my 55" TV from under 2 metres, I can see much more detail than 1080. I'm getting a bit confused reading your comment, but I think it might contradict that.
I believe only Imax 70/15 film still has a future for a few decades to go since the quality and experience is unmatched. What hasn't being said in the case of Oppenheimer is that over two thirds was actually filmed in 70mm/5perf, since dialogue scenes can't be shot with the Imax 15perf because the IMAX camera are too noisy. This was a disappointment to me when I saw the movie in BFI IMAX, Londen. 70mm/5 perf is a large film format but can't match the 15perf at all in an IMAX theatre. . Everything has to do with screen size and distance between public and screen. All the 70MM5perf sequences - except maybe for the close-ups- looked very poor in comparison. So, has IMAX film a future? Yes, I think so. New silent IMAX cameras will hopefully find their way so that feature films can be shot ENTIRELY on that format! Cross fingers!
Well likely it was filmed in 65mm film. It's generally transferred over to the 70mm film for projection. But yeah, getting the silent IMAX cameras is a big one so they don't have to do scenes twice lol
@@FrameVoyager Right. 65mm is the camera format and 70mm the release print format. The extra space was originally intended for the analogue soundtracks.
Wonderful discussion in this video. And thank you for not answering the question, but leaving that to the audience 😊 Really good video. Have become a big fan of this channel!
Appreciate it! And yeah, wanted to leave this kind of open ended and let the viewer answer if they want film still in the future. It's an interesting topic for sure and don't want to convolute it by picking a side.
Agree except maybe for Imax 70mm15perf since this quality is not reached yet with digital technology, but it will come for sure. NHK Japan has already shown their 16K dual-laser projection system many years ago.... Waiting for camera's and the industry to follow. (Japan is always 15 years ahead, I remember seeing HD in 1993 in Tokyo, we had to wait until 2007 in Europe...). Another thing: Why did we go back to Vinyl while far better audio-deliverables such as Super Audio CD and Blu-ray Audio are available... Hype and commerce....
@@cinebirdfrance6378 Yes, I agree but any kind of 'old' technology will only be niche and for the specialist, enthusiast or nostalgic market - and to make money of course. I go to film festivals t osee movies projected digitally and via film prints and I will also go to see Nolan's excellent film in 70mm 15 perf in Manchester but it won't be my normal cinema going activity. I too have bought an old Sony twin cassette deck and an even older Akai reel to reel tape machine but they are NOT intended to replace my digital music storage and playing options. Mainly because of the cost, easy of use and ultimately better quality of delivery! Technology moves on and most of us move with it and those that don't can partake in the 'joy of painting'.
3:55 Not sure how old this list you found is, but Rian Johnson gave into Steve Yedlin’s film emulation voodoo a while ago and shoots digitally now. Dead Reckoning was also shot entirely digitally.
Well a lot of them are hybrid now due to the industry changes. And yeah, they filmed dead reckoning with z-cam and the sony venice 2. But they have both said they want to go back to film. I think digital might have been chosen because of the pandemic for that production
@@FrameVoyager Yeah I was pretty surprised to see Z cam on the list when I looked up the tech specs. And yeah, I guess that makes sense. I just figured since the IMAX scenes in fallout were shot on the Venice, that this was bound to happen to the series eventually. McQuarries comments on Twitter suggest that two will be fully digital as well, so I guess we’ll just have to see what they do after that.
I personally don't really care that much about film vs digital because I think at this point in time, both can look really amazing and it comes down to the lenses, angles, color grading, visual effects enhancements, etc. I should add though that I do agree with Christopher Nolan that 15/70mm IMAX is better than digital, and this becomes obvious when watching 4K Bluray IMAX scenes
I can see pixelation on subtitles in my local theater, and not in the front row, no, all the way back. My laptop has better viewing experience. I don't have any 70mm IMAX that is less then half a day trip and can't say that it is any good but digital is crap. They cheap out so much
We can argue about image quality and superior resolution all day (and there really is no argument: film is better). But here's the brutal reality. 99.9% of audiences don't care. 99.9% of the ticketbuying public just want to go to the movies. At the end of the day, it's going to come down to cost and what kind of distribution makes $$$. And I hate to say it, but digital is way cheaper, it turns much higher profits, and the vast majority of people who went to see "Oppenheimer" have no idea (or have any interest) as to what kind of projection they were looking at. They just wanted to see a good movie. Film is going the way of the dinosaur. Sorry, folks.
Digital all the way. Anyone claiming that digital is inferior please stand up and bring proof - just like the people who claim digital compressed (!) audio is inferior. I personally set up double blind tests for the naysayers 20 years ago, nobody could point out the digital ones with more than 50% probability. I can dumb down a high-end digital image to look as bad as film any day too. For enthusiasts it'll survive, just like for photography. Oh and screw 24fps, it just gives me headaches.. --- regards - an optics physicist
On the other hand at the release of interstellar there was only one cinema showing it in 70mm (non IMAX) here in Germany. With Oppenheimer this number increased to 7 (plus one 35mm). So the number of film projections at least seems to be increasing here. IMAX 70mm I think is reclining because the film reels are three times the size and weight of a normal 70mm print and it’s so much more unpractical that the cost.
There are many more prints than just the 30 IMAX prints. There are 128 non IMAX 70mm prints and 98 35mm prints out there. So in total about 256 film prints world wide. And while IMAX 70mm is so complex, 70mm 5-perf and 35mm are niche enough to be profitable for theaters and distributors. Being a true premium format that’s much easier to handle than 70mm 15-perf. And still higher quality than digital. As an exhibition medium regular 70mm and 35mm aren’t going anywhere. They’re not gonna grow, but they’re also not gonna shrink anymore either. Those people that still do that, do it because they care. As for the IMAX projectors. Well the issue isn’t only the projectionists or the projectors being old it’s the projectors sitting around for years without running. These are machines meant to run. That’s why a theater like the BFI IMAX that had been showing quite a bit of 70mm 15-perf this year was able to run for over a week, with 24/7 showings without any problems. Old mechanical beasts need movement and attentions. Not to collect dust for years. I’m 25, I am part of the new generation of filmmakers and I only wanna shoot and finish on film. It’s not that great things can’t be done with digital. It’s that film is simply a much more powerful artistic medium for narrative movies.
TLDR; Film is dying. I mean come on guys, the graphs, numbers and projections (pun intended) doesn't lie. I'm not happy about it, but it is what it is.
For me cinema was over when one cinema was converted into 3 or 4 tiny screening rooms. They were pathetic. I stopped going right then it was over for me. I built my own home cinema and watched movies in the comfort of my own home and still do in 2023
Honestly: This whole thing about "film cameras" and "analog vs. digital" is starting to sound the same as it does with Hi-fi. It's more about "doing the thing" and the "process" rather than anything more substantial that makes a big difference. It's bunch of nerds who argue about frequencies, soundstage and whatever, trying to pass off their subjective anecdotes and universal truths and seemingly being able to tell a difference 99% of people cannot. Same with film cameras: I can't tell the difference. I don't watch movies at the theater. I don't have crazy movie setups. I don't see enough of a difference other than maybe sharpness? But I honestly sometimes prefer the VHS look...
What's the point if they end up editing the movie in the digital domain anyway and then having to reprint it? Just a waste of resources. Sure, shoot it on film to get "the look", but for projection!?
We can’t truly take IMAX into consideration for this issue, because is SO expensive. Only the big productions can afford that. Many of us are constantly trying to achieve that film look on digital... so it would be better to just shoot on film right? True, but the convenience of shooting on digital is greater. That said, of course it would be awesome to shoot on film sometimes. Now, if we are talking about film projection vs digital. Digital is way more reliable experience.
I mean... That's kind of obvious though and not really what the video is talking about. This is looking more at if there is even going to be infrastructure in place to keep it alive in the first place.
@@FrameVoyager not to be argumentative, but it’s isn’t obvious and needs to be said, look at 28 Days Later. Shot on a Canon Video camera with Cooke Primes. It looked like crap for the first 10 minutes, the wife shots went to mud. After about 15-20 minutes, I didn’t notice anything because “the story” was pretty good. I understand what you are getting at, and as a former Arriflex and Aaton owner/operator, I love film, do I miss it? Not really. I do appreciate that there are directors shooting on it.
@@jamesbridges1107 @jamesbridges1107 sure, it needs to be said in certain contexts, but we're not really asking whether or not a film is good or not in this video, just if it has any ability to survive even if there are good stories being made. It doesn't really factor into the context of this specific video.
At least in Hollywood dozens of movies were shot on film last year. And internationally movies get shot on film too. I’m not saying it’s crazy amount but enough to keep Kodak’s giant factory running. Don’t know why IMDb spits out only five but that’s flat out wrong. Plus there are still a hand few TV shows shooting film.
That film was the first to be released in fully digital, but attack of the clones was the first shot fully in digital in early 2000. That film just beat it to theaters by a year. They used the same camera developed by Sony for Lucas
@@FrameVoyager Based on wikipedia : "It is notable as being the first major fantasy film to be released that was shot entirely with digital cinematography, using a Sony HDW-F900 CineAlta camera." and "It was the first feature film to be shot in digital progressive HDTV at 24 fps cinematic framerate (1080p24), one year before Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones.[6] A few short scenes, however, were shot using DV format (576i25) for artistic purposes"... But then it doesn't matters, one was made by George Lucas, the other made by the guy who would end up making Catwoman 😂
@@alexkyria 😂😂😂 right! See the information I always found was it got released first but Lucas had principal filming before they did. Who knows haha. Wild west back then
I watch oppenheimer on 35mm, because in Asia the only film format I can watch is 35mm at Hong Kong, even is the "worst" format for oppenheimer (worst then digital IMAX) but the grain still touched me
I was fortunate to see Oppenheimer in 70mm analog projection on one of the last giant Cinerama screens in Germany: the Schauburg cinema in Karlsruhe. Awesome 👍🤩
This might sound crazy, but what if they developed a self-threading IMAX projector? (I say that as I look over at my Eiki Slim Line) Something that is a bit more friendly to theaters since film presentations don't happen enough to always have a projectionist (unless you're a boutique theater that runs film regularly). Say we suddenly see directors and studios wanting to release on IMAX enough that we get at least one movie every year or every other year. A more user friendly, automated, projector could allow a theater's to train more long term and senior staff for such events. But I don't think this is going anywhere unless we get more than the Nolan release every three years.
I don't hate the idea! But I do think that there is something to be said about making IMAX 70mm screenings these big "EVENTS" that come around for very specific movies. I think that kind of keeps that magic alive
Let's not forget, that image quality isn't just film size and/or how many pixels it is (4K, 8K, etc...), but also it's overall color and contrast from absolute white to absolute (and pure) black.
Honestly I don't see how film can stay forever. New cameras (maybe a ALEXA 65 with 3 of the newer Sensors that are in the ALEXA 35 will be that camera) will ivertake the quality of even IMAX film, Prjectors will become even better to the point where they also do match that quality. So honestly what I want is just bigger screens. Instead of many smaller rooms cinemas should really just have one huge one. Because with that they can differentiate themselves from a home cinema.
multiplexes came to facilitate different films to be released simultaneously, or fewer films to have more shows than the four traditional shows on a single screen. For a majority of films out there, film is already not needed. But good film usage has incredible spatial resolution potential to let people keep adapting to newer resolutions, example Matrix in 4K has two versions: One was upscaled from the older HD DVD version, another re rendered from the film negatives. Upscaling is annoying and quality image can be better stored on manageable cellulose acetate tapes than magnetic tapes or tiny physical aberrations in silicon chips that need a compiler to translate. The first is an example of film negative, the other two digital. We need film backups to be able to record our history without the need of future gens needing context of other technologies to retrieve it
i do however agree that multiplex screens need to be larger. Or at least have better wall to screen ratio to give the feeling of a big screen. Otherwise even a big screen with too much wall will feel small in a big hall.
Great break down THANK YOU. Yes you are nitpicking ! The 70mm IMAX was amazing and all the complaints to me were part of the charm and charisma. I am so over the CGI flawlessness (like the AI images you now see). It all becomes so unrealistic. These specks of dust, these out of focus shots and the quality of the film all are part of the imperfections that makes it relatable to us imperfect human beings. (like practical FX) Yes the movies should bring us out of ourselves. But it is way better when we still are ourselves and emerge in a fantasy that finally does not ostracize the adventure experience. I became one within reality. Actually got emotional of the sheer beauty of that in the end. Why did you choose to whine ? It was great not despite but because of the defects! A pity you didn't take that opportunity.
I'm not whining at all lol. I saw Oppenheimer in 70mm IMAX and thoroughly enjoyed it. This video really is a neutral stance that doesn't answer the question of whether or not it will survive. It also presents the challenges it faces going forward.
My local theatre makes films shot in films look so bad - I skip it all together and wait for a bluray version (by now the process is perfected and in my opinion you do get superior quality that way rather than any projection) only people who dont know how to get a quality bluray copy would disagree.
Not totally agree. Everything has to do with screen size AND distance between public and that screen. Blu-ray 4K and even regular 1080P is perfect for TV screens and even good equipped Home Theaters with screens up to 4m and a looking distance between 3 and 5 meters . Perfect and I also enjoy this in my own one. But Imax - screen is another story and was intended to be different from all other projection experiences: Hughe screen with people close to that screen so they wouldn't see the borders of that screen and this to match the experience of being there. Only 70mm/15perf filling the ENTIRE IMAX screen gives this experience, at least for the moment. I saw an interview with one of the founders of the Imax format and the old man was shocked about 2K or 4K images (original or blown up 35mm) being presented as IMAX. Has nothing to do with it as he stated and I think he is absolutely right. But I agree with you local old theaters projecting bad 35mm copies is awful.
3:56 Cruise and McQuarrie now have a film out, the new Mission Impossible, which is shot entirely in digital as opposed to Fallout's hybrid of film and digital. Even they're backing away from it
Yep! Sony Venice 2 and z-cam. But they did that for a specific reason and because of some of the locations and reportedly because of filming during the pandemic. They've said in recent interviews they want to get back to film
@@Lanosrep yeah I don't think they liked it haha. Here is the thread www.reddit.com/r/Mission_Impossible/comments/14vdnty/switch_from_film_to_digital/?
You've got it! and that exactly the Reason MI7 is looking worse than every Predessor. See the areal shots with the the Train, complete Video look, blown Highlights as always. From now on, MI Movies will never be Classics. Watch such a movie years later, and you will see it, it's just video.
Oh always does. Not really saying that though in the video, just exploring the complexity of changing systems and the differences between digital and film.
i think its gonna be like Vinylls, in the way that they're kinda obselete, but there's still a very real nich audience for it. so i think there's always gonna be one.
The difference is that you can record an album digitally and then at comparatively little additional cost produce vinyl records from digital source. It’s also not that expensive for a customer to get a vinyl record player to be able to listen to the album. With film there are much higher costs in producing the movie and costs of operating a cinema capable of playing such movie is more expensive. Eventually economic consideration will win over nostalgia.
Greta Gerwig shot her Little Women on film but she shot Lady Bird and Barbie on Digital. I mean it depends on the nature of the film. To me personally I think Dune should have been shot on film but I understand them because it's hard to blend VFX digital shots onto Film. But Nolan did that in Interstellar but Dune had alot more VFX shots.
Sophia Coppola shoots on 35mm. As does Patty Jenkins (plus 70mm scenes for Wonder Woman and Imax 70mm for WW84). It's only a problem if they asked for film and were denied it. Maybe they choose Digital.
I am deeply saddened that most movies are only shot in digital now and then I’ll never be able to fully project a film and thread a film at a theater anymore!
Unfortunately, commercially film no longer makes sense. Unlike vinyl, it's still reasonable cheap to fuel the neche market that wants it. Film is simply to risky and to much infrastructure and costs are massive. Commercially it is a very bad bet. It's why the number of projectors keeps shrinking as those who have them find it harder and harder to justify the costs. It's very unfortunate.
I've had my best movie experiences watching them on the go. I see people like Nolan and Dennis as focusing on the wrong thing by saying that you must watch a movie in a theatre. If your movie is more than spectacle, then it can be enjoyed anywhere. Just last month I watched Nimona on the beach while watching the sun rise, I didn't get to finish it there but I finished it in my kitchen, I cried a lot and this movie is now probably my favourite. I fail to see how I would have had a similar experience in the theatre.
For me it's the size of the screen and the audio setup. Hard to get that kind of experience at home. IMAX really helps immerse you and hear the mixing of the audio. Though really only a select few movies I care to see this way
@@FrameVoyager yea I do understand that. That is a valid point and I'm not saying that is wrong. I too am sometimes a tech junkie and want to hear/see the technical best thing out there. But this is only one aspect of consuming art. There's so many different ways engaging with art beyond the technical aspects, and it is sad that some people refuse to let others enjoy art, just because they aren't consuming it the correct way. Btw, I use wired iems most of the time with my phone, they are quite flat and it's actually pretty impressive how much detail you can hear. Cheers.
A very smart woman once said that the Chinese use the same word for crisis as they do for opportunity... Maybe this will work itself out the same way it does with many studios no longer releasing their films physically. The demand for physical releases is sinking for a long time and for people like me who like owning and watching movies from disc this was horrible. Some movies only released on DVD, movies releasing on DVD Blu-ray and maybe UHD got very bare bones releases with terrible boxes and these feel cheap for the price they are asking for it. Now several studios no longer provide physical releases here in Germany but at the same time smaller companies took the opportunity and release those movies here. Sometimes in rather elaborate sets containing multiple formats and extras. Those sets cost a bit more but these sets aren't meant for everyone but for those who want to have something like this. The same with legacy releases. Years ago Sony released the japanese "Ring" on Blu-ray. Transfer was fine, packaging was cheap and uninspired, no extras apart from a trailer and all this for around 20€. Earlier this year one of this small companies released it again on UHD+BD set. Transfer is great, it comes in a media book packaging with newly commissioned artwork and has over 90 minutes of really sweet extras. They've even made a new german dub because the old one sucked but included both on here and all for 30€... I think it might be the same with film screenings. People are willing to travel quite a bit to watch film screenings and that shows that there is interest in this kind of events and I really appreciate this kind of screening because this means everyone in attendance really wants to see the movie and won't talk all the way through... I have the chance to watch "2001 a space oddysey" in 70mm next month and all I have to do is drive 300km. They should bring those old roadshows back. If one of the most expensive parts of showing real film is the cost of the prints they should make fewer prints and send them on tour. Make it an event. They could do new movies and maybe do the roadshow before the wide release and they could do classics and cult movies. A 70mm blow up of Alien is coming to town? I'd go to see it...
As much as I love IMAX 70mm, the fact that so few locations have it, and with the stories of projection mishaps around the country, it may be time for Nolan to at least convice more theaters that still have 1.43 screens but no 70mm projectors to upgrade to dual laser. There's only one authentic IMAX screen here in the Chicago area, but they are still running the old 2K digital xenon system, which can only project up to 1.90:1. It's because of this that i had to Take a 3.5 hour ride on a FlixBus out to Indianapolis to experience "Oppenheimer" the way Nolan intended. Now if that IMAX near me had the dual laser setup, I would have been just fine with that. Another benefit of dual laser other besides the preservation of the 1.43 aspect ratio, no need for platter extensions to accommodate long movies. I think shooting in IMAX is here to stay, but projecting as such will be rare.
I just got back from watching Oppenheimer in IMAX 70MM film, and I saw a tremendous difference in the scale of quality which contributed to experiencing the story. Humans are nostalgic. It’s like comparing vinyls to mp3. Most of society will continue to stream music on Spotify, but theres going to be a continuously growing interest in vinyl from those whom are aware of the organic and lifelike quality in analog formats. Though digital will remain the main money making machine, I believe we’re about to see way more movies shot on film in the coming decades. By the way, amazing editing. This was well done.
Appreciate it! Trying some new editing techniques. Always looking to do something new haha. And yeahhh, I couldn't tell if mine was sharper and clearer in 70mm or if the digital projector just wasn't focused well 😂
IMAX/70mm has a higher calculated resolution, if you can even call it that, but in terms of color depth, consistency and other common technical specs its probably pretty bad, but as you say, theres live to it, like vinyl, wich is probably the objectively worst in terms of every measurement.
For me going to the movie theater has always been much more about the sound over the visuals. I have a 4k tv and 5.1 surround system in my house, but it still can't compare to the sound system in even the most basic movie theater. I don't really care too much about how I see the movie, more how I hear it. So, while 70mm is cool, it doesn't matter to me if digital replaces it.
Nolan, i have not seen a film in a theater in a very long time, that being said, for this film, and this quality, I gladly will visit my nearest IMAX. Cant wait to see this! Thank you sir for you and your teams hard work. Thank you to the acting team, so looking forward to this!
I've seen Interstellar (in Ben Franklin Institutes dome theater), Dunkirk, and Oppenheimer in 70mm Imax. There's something very special about it. The black levels are different. The highlight roll offs are different. The resolution is technically higher. There's a certain magic to it that always make me happy to see. Its very hard to explain if you haven't seen it yourself. Film is most likely dead but I would urge anyone who even has a the smallest chance of seeing it on film to go for it. We're in the swan song of the film
As someone who grew up in the “digital era” and as a full believer in the space, I think that there’s a place for both analog and digital formats. I’m someone who believes that Hollywood mostly puts out “trash”, that most theatres run antique projectors and sound scapes (yes even imax digital I see as “aged”), I can get an amazing experience at home via 4K Blu Ray, an HDR OLED TV, and high end HT system, sometimes better than what I can get at the theatres. I think the 24fps in film is a long dated format, that doesn’t bode well on modern displays (like OLED with near instantaneous response time). Especially with the advent of digital cameras, 30fps should have been done long ago. Heck even higher framerates such as variable HFR, or HFR with motion blur in post. Even modern Blu ray discs can’t support HFR formats, despite technologies like VRR being readily available which allows the TV to sync at whatever Framerate the source device is outputting. Many within the film industry would find what I am saying as simply blasphemy. However, there are unique benefits to film that simply cannot be replicated with other formats. The aspect ratio of 70mm perf is by far the best, and removes one of my biggest quirks of modern movies, the black bars! The resolution you get over film is also unmatched, with up to 20K resolution. These directly translate to the digital version as well, and when I watch my 4K Blu Ray at home, I know that I am getting the best image possible with the widest aspect ratio. There is also a inherent “feel” to film that cannot be replicated digitally. The film grain, the way film is projected at 24fps that doesn’t cause the inherent judder that modern OLED displays inherent due to instant response time, or the persistent motion blur that plague legacy LCD screens due to the exact opposite reasons. Tenet was the first movie I was able to experience in 70mm film. Oppenheimer was sold out in 70mm from the moment I even tried to buy tickets, so my first showing settled for digital IMAX. With the two week extension for 70mm IMAX, I was able to secure tickets for a second showing. As long as the industry has directors like Nolan, people who can push the boundaries of film not just in terms of the movie, but also the technology and get people out of their seats and into the theatres, then the future is definitely brighter than some people are envisioning. CD never spelt the end to Vinyl, Digital Games hasn’t stopped developers from releasing physical games, the reason being these formats offer a unique set of benefits that are simply lacking in the other. For this reason, there will always be a market for it, and if there’s a market there is money to be made. It may become smaller, and niche, but niches also tend to generate the highest returns rather than appealing to the masses. In many cases these niches are often willing to pay more than the alternative, so they can have these unique set of advantages. I can’t wait to watch Oppenheimer in 70mm, and I will continue to watch movies in 70mm IMAX as much as I can when available. I think the future is bright for 70mm.
as ex retired projectionist CIC/UCI cinemas and warner bros is reason i don't go to uk cinemas anymore , digital is rubbish , 4k is rubbish , 8k rubbish , 18k rubbish , imax liemax format rubbish , george lucas yet again has ruined cinema , the only thing he had right was the THX sound system , until he started messing with THX-vhs tapes and then it all went wrong 2:19 i stopping the video there's no point watching anymore of this i have made up mind , digital movies are rubbish , noticed i said digital movies and not digital film as it simply isn't digital , if multi soundtrack can be time coded synced with film , well yes and no , i still prefer six-track stripe Dolby Stereo CP200 with JBL THX i'm out here
As a young aspiring filmmaker, I personally prefer film to digital. I’ve been looking into 16mm film cameras for my first major project and would preferably use digital only for practicing what I’m going to record on my film camera. I’m determined that my generation and future generations can keep film alive.
Same after seeing it in 70mm IMAX, I no longer have any doubts about films place in cinema. A majority of complaints ive seen have been due to technical difficuties introduced by 20 years of largely digital only projection. These issues shouldnt be a taken as "see film is worthless, digital all the way!" But as opprotunities to improve and foster growth for new projection/projectionists.
@@FrameVoyager Theres a lot of emotion and heart in his films. Oppenheimer is a good example. Guilt is a topic in the film. Vader has a lot of confliction and not to mention Nolan knows how to make intense scenes. It would be quite cool.
@@ocdab0ss049 True! Vader or Reven probably the best. The Reven one he could play around with his signature messing with time since he left the Jedi became a sith and then they erased his memory.
What I have to wonder is how purists can really promote stuff like Oppenheimer when it had to have been edited digitally to get all the layered soundtracks and effects in. No-one is working on linear editing set ups anymore so they would have to scan the image in and then get it printed out, right? So it's not really the original film from set. It's just projected physically at the end.
I love digital films through digital projectors, I usually see movies in what was once an IMAX theatre but the old film projector is gone and the screen was cut down so it has the full imax width but at a 2.4:1 height and i gotta say, it's my favourite way to watch a movie. I don’t want to film to go away because i don't want anyone to lose their preferred way of things, but I wouldn't be sad if it did...
Honestly, I like film projection, but when it goes I won't feel too sad about it. In my experience the last few films I've seen on 35mm, the presentation was quite bad: wobbly-looking film gate, flickering, scratches, dust spots... Perhaps protectionists were careless, or they weren't trained well on how to present an obsolete technology. I know people like Tarantino have come to romanticize those imperfections, and people love to point out that 35mm/70mm IMAX have 8k-16k resolution or whatever, but that never comes across on the screen to me. It's hard to really discern all the extra detail that comes from film when it's covered in a layer of grain and dust spots. And it won't be long until digital catches up to that resolution WITHOUT the imperfections.
Where I live, I would've had to travel hours to see it in 70mm. I have never ever seen a film reel before in person and have never heard of a cinema nearby that still does it. I really wanted to see Oppenheimer in 70mm, but it's unrealistic for me.
At ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WEVmWOiReEI.html It seems the projectionist is starting to load the film from the outside vs the inside. Is this not backwards?
I agree with you, but we're not really arguing against that either. Just analyzing this specific part. IF the movies weren't good, no one would be going to see them in 70mm haha
@FrameVoyager It's not a great movie. There are some solid performances of a mediocre script drowned in cheesy overloud music. This is a director that places so little trust in his actors he chooses to lean on so many pointess post production techniques and crutches. I find it amusing that people rate him as a genius, he's closer to Michael Bay than Kubrick or Fellini. I'll concede there's a decent movie here, hidden under the hacky artifice. The section leading up to the detonation was a reasonable attempt at Spielbergian build-up although Steven's blocking would have been far more creative and competent. In his prime.
@@robertdouble559 I mean I won't dismiss your views on the movie but there a lot of people, including famous directors who think it was an excellent movie. Personally, I actually enjoy how Nolan emphasizes music and sfx in movies but I understand why some don't like it. But just because one doesn't like a movie, doesn't mean it's not "good." But I understand why you disliked the movie. What would you say some of your favorite films are?
Help your arthouse theaters that still run 35mm and 70mm projections. 70mm imax is its own very special beast and will always be niche because the whole workflow pipeline is extremely expensive.
"There's no movement in movies at all...blablahblah...digital not film...lightbulb...illusion" - No offense, but if Tarantino was a little less biased, he may have figured out why this argument is absolute garbage. The illusion of movement is achieved digitally by refreshing the screen (the 'pictures')fast enough through LED lights, that it creates the _illusion of movement_ . You can then stop there, or optionally pair that with sound. Bam, you have a Motion Picture or Movie. But his auto didactic work on film and knowledge of it otherwise is also almost too impressive to criticize, so I'll leave it at that and just say that he's wrong on one thing. And he's not even really 'wrong' per se, because liking film grain vs pixels is a matter of subjective taste. I will say...I _did_ feel pretty ripped off by the standard-sized 70mm of Oppenheimer and 35mm of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, though this wasn't the case with Imax 70mm presentation of Oppenheimer or the digital-film-digital showings of The Batman and Dune.
As much as I like film, I think it only has a few years left. Digital will remove films right to exist once AI upscaling becomes fool proof and is used in cinema's, a movie shot on 4-8k will feel like 24k resolution.
I like the idea of film being an "event" where it happens every once in a while. It kind of keeps the magic of it alive without diluting the experience
I don't think it will survive. 70mm is good enough to be the best looking format. But 70mm isn't good enough to make it worthy for most productions. Unless we see an increase in directors willing to work with the severe limitations that comes with 70mm, it's gonna die. You can't survive on three or four directors when it requires very specific and expensive hardware to record and display that format. 35mm still has its place and is still fairly affordable, even for lower budgets. But 65mm and specifically IMAX? I don't think it's got a chance unless IMAX (the company) actively work and support directors to shoot enough content with it to make it worthwhile to actually have a large format theater and potentially create more theaters. And honestly, I am not very interested in it anymore either. The growth in digital capturing and projection had a very steep climb upward in quality. While there is nothing compared to 70mm yet, every 35mm format has been beaten years ago. Especially with laser projection. Having worked with film professionally for the past decade hasn't made me miss it much either.
We shouldn't confuse the concepts of shooting a movie on 35mm or 70mm film vs PROJECTING the movie with a film reel. To me, I don't think we lose anything by scanning the analog reel and distributing it digitally. The film aesthetic is still 100% there because it is a film scan and the digital projection is much more reliable that way. Of course we digitally distribute all of that nowadays anyways so I'm not really that concerned about analog projectors in theaters. Filmmakers will continue to shoot with 35mm and 70mm because there is a big demand and the aesthetic is hard to produce. With that said, I think that Digital to Film to Digital conversion is getting REALLY good. Every frame gets imprinted with a unique grain profile because its projected onto film and then scanned back into digital. Dune did this and it looks exceptional. Same with a recent movie called 'The Wonder' which is one of the most beautiful films I've seen recently. Great filmmakers, cinematographers and directors of photography understand how important that film aesthetic is, the nostalgia and tone it creates when the first scene starts, the soft edges and natural blurring of details in the frame that helps focus the eye. Similar to how TV makers and people became obsessed with frame rates and filmmakers had to say, hold on "24 frames per second is king for a reason everything else looks cheap and artificial", we are also starting to now go through a period where people are saying "digital images are too sharp, too clean, it looks unnatural".
Oppenheimer performed well in a job interview with President Roosevelt in about 1942. Julius R. Oppenheimer was a poster boy of the nuclear program of the United States jump-started in about 1942. A car with a dead battery can be jump started with the good battery of another car with a jumper cable. The American atom bomb program was jump started in about 1942 when two academic scientists originally from a country somewhat near Denmark showed up at the white House armed with about 50 papers of the Soviet atom bomb. Einstein had spoken in public forums about the dangers of nuclear power. However nobody in the political circles of Washington DC and no lawmakers paid attention to what Einstein had said about nuclear energy in terms of opinion. The duo offered to jump start a new nuclear weapons research center anywhere in the United State. They stated tp President Roosevelt that they were ready to head this atom bomb re-design program. The two smuglers informed President Roosevelt that they ready to re design the Soviet atom bomb with the design papers that they smuggled to the White House.. This job offer was turned down to the two smugglers. The President accepted the bundle of papers of the Soviet nuclear weapons from the smuggling duo in about 1942. The duo who had arried at the White House claimed that they knew one or two Soviet neuclear scientists from before ww2. The nuclear scientists knew each other before ww2 more as respectable experts and not as buddies: Few of these nuclear scientists of the USSR and academic nuclear scientists of small countries near Denmark from conventions and college visits between ww1 and ww2. After the start of ww2, they all stopped writing letters to each other. The Soviet atom bomb was designed by a Soviet team led by Egor Kurchatov between 1936 and 1942. During a visit to the White House in about 1942, Julius Robert Oppenheimer said he needed 3 months notice in early 1942 approximately, in order to quit his job and to enlist himself in the re-design and re-manufacture of the Soviet atom bomb designed by the Soviet team of dissident nuclear scientists within the Soviet Union. President Roosevelt asked the two academic scientists in about 1942 why there so many papers on nuclear air blast calculations in the smuggled papers on the Soviet atom bomb. the bundle had about 50 pages approximately. The two academic scientists rightly guessed that these air blast calculations were a delaying tactics by the dissident scientists of the Soviet Union to delay the manufacture of he Soviet atom bomb. which made up to 70 percent of the papers handed over to the white House. President Roosevelt made it very clear that he wants an American with a German last name to be the poster boy of the nuclear program of the US. Kurchatov himself was a dissident scientist. He looked more like a beach boy surfing a surf board as a young man. Egor as a young man also looked like a slim fraternity boy in any college in the US. Average fraternity used to be fat. About a decade or two ago, college fraternities in the US made it a requirement that all new fraternity members be slim or muscular and not fat any more. Later, he also started looking like a mad scientist as he aged. Oppenheimer was hesitant to join the nuclear program, as he someone told him as a child that he had a German last name. * In 1942, two theoretical physics from a country hear Holland or Denmark showed up at the White House with detailed blueprints of the Soviet atom bomb along with air blast calculations. President Roosevelt was suddenly highly interested. Two academic scientists from Holland or some other small country near Holland or Denmark visited the White House along with blueprints of the Soviet atom bomb, and offered to become project managers of the American nuclear program. President Roosevelt told Oppenheimer that he needed an American with a German last name as the project manager. Why, If the President finds out that Hitler may use the atom bomb against the US, then President Roosevelt may be obliged to order the use of atom bombs against Berlin. So President Roosevelt wanted a scientist with a German last name to lead the American nuclear program. Einstein had also talked about the dangers of nuclear energy in public. No politician or lawmaker in the US listened to the nerdy scientist named Einstein who looked like a mad scientist. The President listened to the two visiting academic scientists from Central European country who came to the White House in 1942with a bundle of papers and blueprints of the Soviet atom bomb and air blast calculations of the Soviet nuclear weapons program designed there in 1936.
Literally every city should have atleast 1 option of a imax 70mm film projection. Because if i want to see digital i can watch it on my projector in my home too. &it's even worse when you see all these places getting "upgraded" to laser just to cater to bigger amount of things they can show. For example Accenture IMAX Dome Theatre at Discovery Place Science Charlotte they had 70mm imax projector till 2022. Even though Oppenheimer looked great with fisheye lens on laser imax projector i still don't know how 70mm imax would have looked like 😭
The problem I see in the future is, we are going to have such high resolution devices that the only way to properly view old media without it looking like garbage, will be to have original film copies on hand, to be digitally converted. Even if you gain no benefit visually because the digital resolution is superior to the film, you can't take something shot digitally and blow it up in resolution without consequences, that's why 4k releases get rescanned and don't just recycle older HD masters. We're going to have the same problem with shows produced digitally in EDTV resolution, that look like garbage after trying to upscale them to a mere 720p or 1080p release. Only it will be some film recorded in 4k or 8k that you're trying to blow up to whatever standard resolution devices run at down the road. AI upscaling can only do so much without a massive revolution in computer technology, and it will still be extremely expensive vs just rescanning something that exists on film.
So film makers are using 70mm IMAX to try to save film, but in reality they just condemn their vision to be experienced in chopped up imperfect ways because most theaters around the world just can’t deal with the format. This feels like shooting your self in the foot to justify buying new shoes. Maybe they are forcing their attachments to the medium on us, their audience. The medium is an important choice, but it should not detract from the story, the image and the whole experience of the film. For equality’s sake, I’d say let film die and improve digital technology. After all, no movie has ever been good or bad because of using film or not.
I saw Super 8 on film when in came out. And it was... bad) Blue colored movie has warm tint from non acurate film print (every film copy have slight diferent color and brightnes). There was a little scratch at the begining. Its not runed film, but my first experience was like its not movie about 70s, it was like movie was shot in the 70s))
1:40 - "Attack of the Clones"'s principal photography looks like shit through modern eyes. Of the special effects of the movie look cartoonish now. I bet Lucas wishes he's had still gone with film for the whole prequels. It just goes to show how Lucas had become a "lazy" flim-maker.
So, one hour of 35mm costs roughly $4,200... ok, not too bad, but not that great either. If your shooting ratio is 20:1 and you don't use every single frame of every 400ft reel, you could be looking at close to $200k just in shooting stock.
film should die. digital array displays get much higher quality, the problem is the expense of the professional grade digital cameras. you could have shot oppenheimer in full 18k (if you spent the massive bucks for the proper built to order camera) but a film format was cheaper. i blame red cameras for the massive price hike.
There was no mention of editing the footage after filming. Giving that nowadays everything has special effects I presume if a movie is shot on film it has to get digitized, add the VFX and then this digital version put back on film. This kind of defeats the purpose of film in the first place. Am I wrong?
we have an imax cinema in my city but spending 30 bucks for 2 persons just for the tickets is just nothing i am willing to do when i can watch it on my sofa for 5 bucks on Amazon in 4K with my thx rated home cinema sound system. no doubt cinema is a better experience but damn it is too expensive
