600 lbs ~ 272 kg
11 miles ~ 18km
Good bot
Flashback to the old days (1 month ago)
Joey refugee here, this was only 24 h ago
Or approximately 2400 cheeseburgers for the Americans in the audience.
That’s almost a years worth!
272 kg ~ 43 stone
43 stone ~ 1.4 boulder
2 boulders = 1 pair boobies
According to this the average pair of boobies is 860 pounds, sounds about right.
How many pebbles?
86 in the winter, 87 daylight savings time
I understand 600lbs. Kgs mean nothing to me.
I understand 272 kg. Lbs mean nothing to me. :)
I didn’t realize imax was still film. I figured it went digital with everything else.
70mm film to be exact
15/70mm film to be exact. IMAX 15/70mm is different to standard 5/70mm you would get in a normal cinema.
I’ve not really been into films but recently I’ve started to pay more attention to directors and screen writers.
I really want to watch Oppenheimer as it interests me but I really really want to watch it on 70mm IMAX, I am lucky enough to love 6 miles away from one and I don’t know if it will be that good or if the marketing team has done a hell of a job.
I’ve been watching videos and reading up about IMAX and cinematography. Every showing is booked up for the first week that I checked. Even the 7am showings.
How good is 70mm imax
70mm is the equivalent of shooting 18k digitally
there are both, the top end is still film though as far as I understand
There’s only a handful of IMAX theatres in the world that can play this format. Most of them are digital.
Our local one did, but I guess not all. It’s a shame, you used to be able to watch the film being wound through windows
You can still do it through Linux, if you know the right commands…
That will fit nicely in my 32gb micro sdxc the size of a fingernail.
Actually it won’t. A movie on a 4k blu ray is around 80gb without additional compression. And Oppenheimer is shot on 70mm which is more like 8k resolution. Still would fit on a micro SD of course
It’s way bigger than that. Usually cinemas receive movies in multiple terabyte hard drives. Thats because they are using JPEG2000 standard (it varies, but it is close to lossless) and a movie can take up anywhere from 500GB to 2TB (highly dependent on resolution, it can go above 2TB).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000?wprov=sfla1
True but you won’t lose the film roll that easy
Some things to keep in mind about the theater experience.
- Only a handful of theaters do film IMAX anymore. A lot of IMAX locations are just 4k DCP (Digital Cinema Package)
- Most theaters in the world are digital projectors with a max resolution of 1998x1080 or 2048x858
Part of the reason these factors still exist is cost. A poorly maintained film projector with a lousy film print can ruin a movie going experience. Hollywood would sometimes release so very shitty prints. The digital projectors are much easier to maintain so the experience is often more ideal for the average movie goer.
Having said that, if a theater takes good care of their film projectors and they have a well made and well kept print, the experience can be amazing.
If you can see the film print in the opening week. Christopher Nolan makes his movies in an analog way. So it is a film process all the way though except for VFX. This is one of the only opportunities to see film that was not digitally modified. Only one place in the world can make these imax 70mm film prints and they are all basically hand made. EDIT: link changed to piped link. https://piped.video/watch?v=xa1xJIgLzFk
2k digital projection is typically used in smaller theaters where the screen size is not large enough for anyone to actually see a difference.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=xa1xJIgLzFk
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I’m going to see it in 70mm on the 28th and I’m sooo fucking excited! I got center seats near the back too, it’s gonna be epic. I wish there were more 70mm IMAX theaters so more people could experience it but I understand why there aren’t lol
Removed by mod
Question for anyone reading.
I want to build a mancave downstairs, but I wouldn’t watch enough things to warrant a TV. I was thinking of buying a projector. Projectors used to be expensive, very expensive. Good projectors still seem to be, however now there are a plethora of cheap projectors on sites like Ali, Temu, Amazon, etc. Is it worth buying a high quality projector? Will I notice the difference? Or can I get away with a $40 projector bought off one of those sites?
My plan would simply be to stream stuff off my phone. If a cheap projector is a bad idea, what is a good protector and how much would I need to pay? Also, anyone know what the best audio setup would be for this?
If you’re looking to keep costs super low I imagine you’re better off going for a second hand projector over a cheap new one.
That is what I did, just make sure that you can get a spare bulb for reasonable money. Some old projectors have EXPENSIVE bulbs
Removed by mod
I think you are misunderstanding some assumptions.
This will be for a “Manc-Ave” (SO ref) that I will likely, get maybe, at most a movies worth of my own time… And I do intend to watch all the scary moves that my wife won’t allow down there… so that’s a plus, although thet get boring quick.
If I pay to see a movie in an IMAX theater, this is the film being loaded? Is this normal for IMAX?
No. This is called “15/70 Imax”. There are very very few theaters that have this. The “Imax” you’ll find at the local mall is totally different.
Check out this list. The imax 70mm ones would be reels like this one.
https://www.in70mm.com/news/2023/oppenheimer_cinema/index.htm
This reminds me of one of those documentaries where they show some ridiculous mechanical contraption in a scene, and the narrator says, “Before the technology became extinct, it had become vastly more complex and sophisticated, but alas, it’s days were numbered…”
A lot of the time, the complexity is the main reason something goes bye bye; something just as sophisticated comes along, but is far less complex. Making it less prone to failure/easier to use/implement.
The film being that close to the edge of the platter gives me MASSIVE anxiety. I’ve dealt with brain wraps or film melting in the gate, but those are easy compared to film slinkying off the edge of the platter. Nothing like coming into a booth to find hundreds of feet of film in a rats nest of sadness and rainchecks.
I was watching this video on IMAX film and noticed that the outside film is actually fixed in place and the reel unspools from the center and fills up the reel on the other rack. So fortunately it isn’t possible for it to unspools from the outside.
https://youtu.be/gENOhw1Q3vMCorrect. That’s how most 35mm projectors work as well. The film feeds out from the middle of one platter, through the projector then onto a return platter where it spools from the center out. But if the tail of the film (which is on the outer edge) comes loose and falls off the edge it could cause the entire print to spin off the edge of the platter, one layer at a time. It’s like a slinky, the weight of the film falling will make it fall faster and faster. It would end up in a big circular pile that would be an absolute nightmare to get back on the platter.
There’s nothing worse than coming into the booth and finding hundreds of feet of film tangled on the ground.
Ah, that’s interesting and definitely sounds like an awful mess to deal with. Thanks for sharing, I’m not as familiar with film projection.
Thank you for taking a few moments to learn about it yourself! The link you provided to the Imax video wasn’t one I’d seen before, and I love watching that kind of shit.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/gENOhw1Q3vM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I read quite a few comments, admittedly not all. But I haven’t seen this asked.
How is this 600 pounder handled? Forklift? Hoist? WTH?
Team of bodybuilders
Seeing this tonight and cannot wait!
I’m kind of out of the loop. What is the hype around oppenheimer and barbie recently?
Christopher Nolan tends to make beautiful IMAX films like Inception or The Dark Knight, and he supposedly put in a lot of effort to simulate a nuclear blast using physical effects and not CG by using massive amounts of dynamite, so people are excited.
Barbie movie is made by Greta Gerwig and the trailer made it out to be a smart satire of the Barbie concept with Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling as Barbie and Ken. Also they used so much pink paint for the sets that it caused a nationwide shortage of that color (of that one brand only).
Both have a lot of hype and are expected to be top movies of the summer. They happen to overlap on the same opening weekend, which is amusing since they’re such different movies.
Oppenheimer is expected to be really good, mainly because it’s made by Christopher Nolan. Barbie is releasing on the same day, so it probably gained some popularity off of that.
have you seen the trailers? barbie actually looks good as shit - the first teaser was a shot for shot recreation of 2001: A Space Odyssey trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6vPuIMAOlA
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=I6vPuIMAOlA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
nice thanks robot! Good job
It’s a bit off an off-topic but, can someone explain me the difference between IMAX and iSense? I’ve googled it but don’t fully understand it. How does iSense compare to this beast of an IMAX film reel for example? What about more standard IMAX theatres?
Thanks!
Guessing this will beat Interstellar record for longest IMAX film. Interstellar has the record being 2 hours and 47 minutes. But looks like Oppenheimer is 3 hours long.
This obsession with the length and weight of the film is such a bizarre marketing strategy.
Yeah, we all know girth is what matters.
Big and heavy means quality, don’t you know?
It’s something you don’t see every day. What are you asking for?
It’s interesting, calm down.
I think you meant to reply to the guy above me.
Ya this feels really astroturfy. Are they bragging that the movie is really long?
Movies are getting really long and I don’t know if I like it. I watched Across the Spider-verse recently which was I think 2.5 hours. To be fair it was a fantastic 2.5 hours, but every other movie in the theater was 2 hours plus and one was over 200 minutes long. Half of them were animated, which are usually on the short side and for good reason, because there’s never any real meat to the story (Spider-verse again being the exception). Sometimes you just want a relaxed 1 hour 20 minute story; not every film has to be this gigantic grand experience.
Do you know “The Ten Commandments” or “Ben Hur”? Or perhaps such monumental comedy productions as “The Hallelujah Trail”? It’s always been a thing
I’ll add The Godfather, Casino, Braveheart and Lord of The Rings to fill in some of the gap between then and now
I had no idea it was actual film and this thicc
It’s confirmed, Oppenheimer is dummy thicc.
I’m sure I’m wrong, but it’s hard to imagine this being better quality than what we can do digitally these days.
You are in fact wrong lol. Actual film has a resolution equivalent of something like 18K.
Wasn’t normal 35mm film about the equivalent of somewhere between 4k and 8k depending on the film stock?
Plus, the projector optics will always limit the sharpness of the picture. No lense is ideal, and even ideal lenses would have fundamental limitations due to diffraction.
Something like that.
As far as lens optics, we’re really splitting hairs here. 70mm through a quality lens in an imax theater is going to look absolutely fantastic and stunning. Digital is just more convenient and at some point it will catch up and surpass film.
My point was more like that even IMAX film doesn’t quite get to 18k equivalent, more like 12 to 16k. Honestly, anything above 4k (for normal widescreen content) even on big screens is barely noticeable if noticeable at all. THX recommends that the screen should cover 40° of your FOV; IMAX is what, 70°, so 8k for it is already good enough. Extra resolution is not useful if human eye can’t tell the difference; it just gets to the meaningless bragging rights territory like 192 kHz audio and DAC-s with 140 dB+ S/N ratio. Contrast, black levels, shadow details, color accuracy are IMO more important than raw resolution at which modern 8k cameras are good enough and 16k digital cameras will be more than plenty.
The extra resolution isn’t completely useless from an editing standpoint.
If you’re working with 16k footage and a 4K deliverable and the shot isn’t quite right you can crop up to 75% of the image with no loss in quality.
This kind of thing would be mostly useful for documentaries, especially nature, or sports where you can’t control the action.
Yup that’s why people can go back and rescan old film movies to make them into 4k now that we have better cameras, but you can’t do that with movies that were recorded with digital
Yeah, we’ll have this brief digital gap from the era when film was going out of fashion and 4k and higher resolution digital cameras weren’t a thing yet. But now that even average youtubers are shooting 4k with cheap(ish) DSRL-s, we generally don’t have to worry about the content having “not good enough quality for the future”.
The bigger problem IMO is the ephemeral and profit-driven nature of modern content distribution. Once the studio decides a film/series is not making enough money and pulls it from streaming, it’s gone. IIRC, DRM of DCP is also remotely managed so even if a cinema physically has the drive with the movie, they can’t play it when the studio pulls the plug–this was not the case with film.
Yeah all that is a huge problem, I remember Microsoft pulled the game Scott pilgrim from the Xbox 360 so if you didn’t buy it beforehand you couldn’t get it anymore until they did some legal stuff to get the game back in the store.
I still think film today is a great tool for getting high resolution photography at a cheap entry cost, a full sized digital sensor camera can be pretty pricey where as a 35mm film camera can be had pretty easy, then once you go to medium format it’s gets more expensive and then I’m not even sure there is large format digital cameras
I don’t think there’s any reason we couldn’t make a store 18k video.
And we could make screen at much higher resolutions that that at imax size, or even quite a bit smaller, though I suspect it would be absurdly expensive.
Storing it isn’t the problem, you’ll still need to be able to record and project at that resolution.
As I said I’m sure we could make screens that could do that. They would be absurdly expensive and heavy and stupid, but it could be done. Not worth it though.
And it looks like at least 16k cameras have been made.
The screens aren’t the problem. It’s often the hardware driving it. The current top generation of gaming gpus struggles at 8k. There’s very little chance of being able to render and play 16/18k
Rendering video and rendering games are pretty different. Video is generally easier especially once it’s mixed down.
Not enough to justify using such a proprietary technology
proprietary technology
Not like the off the shelf stuff you can get to store and show 18K.
Resolution and color reproduction is still unmatched. Plus there are a lot of things happening in the analog domain that our eyes notice as beautiful.
Same thing is true for analog vs digital music production btw
I can’t speak for video, but for audio production that isn’t true. Audio signals can be perfectly reproduced, up to some frequency determined by the sample rate and up to some noise floor determined by the bit depth, digitally. Set that frequency well beyond that of human hearings and set that noise floor beyond what tape can do or what other factors determine, and you get perfect reproduction.
See here. https://youtu.be/UqiBJbREUgU
