▲ 90 points
back
145 comments
If you want a very in depth technical look at the differences between IMAX 70mm, 70mm and 35mm for _The Odyssey_, I wrote an article about this last month.
https://www.theppt.org/rewind/articles/where-can-you-watch-t...
But here are my nit-picks from the article linked here. I'm only commenting on the 15/70mm IMAX parts, because I'm not knowledgable enough about the digital IMAX foramats.
> The extra resolution, up to 18K equivalent
The claim of 18K is entirely untested. No one has ever measured what the theoretical resolution of an 15/70mm IMAX system is. Kodak's film may me theoretically capable of resolving this, but what about the camera lens, the GT projector lens and field flattener, and everything else involved? Until a study is actually done, I don't think the 18K is a good number to band about.
> thanks to the use of single or even dual 15kW water-cooled xenon bulbs
No cinema is using dual lamps. The dual lamps are used for 3D - one lamp per "eye" (right and left). But no 15/70mm IMAX is currently showing 3D, I think the last was the London Science Museum (but that's a guess, so don't take as truth). So it is only single lamp. 15kW is also not always true - some smaller 15/70mm IMAXes use 12kW or around that.
> However, there are only around 24 such theaters in the US, nine in Canada and six elsewhere around the world.
This is incorrect. There are actually 25 in the US, and 7 in the rest of the world, totalling 41 prints.
Thank you very much for the corrections here. As someone else who has professionally worked in the film space, it always irks me when people talk about film in digital resolutions for the reason you mention.
I also agree with many of your other corrections but that is the one I wanted to ageee with the most as it’s my biggest pet peeve when I see people claim “film” is equivalent to a given resolution.
Anything analogue can be (almost) infinitely resolved but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be effectively good at all those resolutions. Almost nobody thinks of the quality of medium and lenses when making those claims.
18K seems high. I did some tests for Universal once and we pulled 10K from some 70mm IMAX ride prints. 8K was solid, 10K was very borderline.
I am not even sure why the theoretical resolution matters when they seem to have so much trouble pulling focus on the actors on an old film camera like the IMAX cameras they use to where the footage is fairly blurry in a lot of cases.
If they used a 6.5K or 8K digital cinema camera they would get all the advanced autofocus abilities those camera have nowadays to keep the actors sharply focused and would end up with more detail in the end.
Not a complaint about your post but this stuff about film formats and aspect ratios has always had me scratching my head.
For years I heard people arguing that wider aspect ratios were preferable because they afforded a wider view, and that narrower aspect ratios were too restrictive horizontally. This always seemed confusing to me because theoretically they should allow for more vertical space for the same width.
Now we're being told the opposite. Obviously if the full frame is being cut for different formats, you're losing some of the shot, so maybe this all reduces to what the director wants, and what is being lost relative to that in different formats.
But then this brings me to my second source of confusion:
> If you watch it in IMAX 70mm, you are seeing it in the full 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which will probably be the only way to experience this format. It would be unprecedented for this full picture to be released on Blu-ray or on streaming, so watching it in a cinema on IMAX 70mm is your chance to experience this.
Why can't releases just be scaled to fit on a screen? You could take that IMAX70mm and scale it down to fit on a different aspect ratios. You'd end up with black bars on the sides of the screen, but then you'd see the same shot, just shrunk down. Everyone has a different TV size anyway so it's all relative.
Clearly resolution plays a role, but IMAX70mm isn't going to be low resolution, and none of this will matter for home viewing anyway.
All of these discussions ultimately seem odd to me. I understand the projection format constraints in movie theaters, but at some point it seems possible to just downscale everything to every aspect ratio format.
They've done it here, so in theory they could just release all these versions as part of a physical disc set (or stream them all):
To add another nit-pick to the list, the author confuses 18K as being four times the resolution of 4K.
8K is four times the resolution of 4K. (counter-intuitively to most people as it only measures the pixels in one dimension yet the image resolution is increased in both width and height)
Diagram:
https://i.pcmag.com/imagery/articles/07toBDd6lpyucCyM0xWrcQv...
There is no such thing as resolution in films. There is accutance and sharpness, but it is not resolution.
7 or 8 of which are in California
I think it's interesting how we went from 4:3 to 16:9, and are now back to something very close to 4:3 again. And both changes were sold as "you can now see even more of the movie".
Most of that discussion is less about any advantages inherent to either aspect ratio and more about just viewing the film as the director originally intended.
The cinematographer would have composed shots for the main 1.43:1 aspect ratio first while taking into consideration the other aspect ratios (the viewfinder will overlay the different framelines to help make those decisions). The DP then gets to go back in during post and recompose each shot for the different formats as needed, tweaking what was originally shot to do their best to maintain a cohesive feel and emphasis across each crop. With five different formats for The Odyssey[0], I'm sure that was a fun experience.
It's not that one format is inherently better. The frame is a storytelling tool, and you can use different aspect ratios to influence how audiences perceive the film.[1] It's when you start changing it afterwards with little regard for the director's original intentions that we see problems. The old pan-and-scan movie releases for VHS or cheap 16:9 conversions are frustrating examples.
0. https://www.odysseymovie.co.uk/explore-formats/
1. https://www.cined.com/aspect-ratio-as-a-storytelling-tool-a-...
There is more than the AR though, there's framing.
In 4:3 the framing is quite tight, and actors mostly fill the vertical space and the width feels somewhat constrained.
Widescreen movies are framed about the same height as 4:3, but with more space on the sides.
IMAX is filmed with the same width as widescreen movies, but with more space added to the top and bottom.
You can typically crop IMAX to widescreen without cutting off actors heads, but you cannot really do that with old 4:3 aspect shows or movies.
I'm a videography hobbyist, there is so much discussion about aspect ratios, particularly around anamorphic lenses. In those circles, wider aspect ratio is almost always considered better (there's more to anamorphics than just aspect ratio but that's separate from this discussion). I have felt the "wider is better" idea is not so much fundamental but more learned through seeing the widescreen in movie theaters which have massive screens with a crazy sound systems. But yea, seeing the opposite argued as seeing more of the movie is pretty funny. Feels pretty arbitrary but there probably is an idea aspect ratio. Probably 16x9. haha.
If the angular image size (which is determined by the aspect ratio, screen size, and viewing distance) increases each time, it's accurate to say "you can now see even more of the movie."
And that is typically what happened. Typical 16:9 flatscreen TVs at home offer a larger angular image size than the typical 4:3 CRTs did. And typical 1.43 IMAX viewings offer a larger angular image size than typical 16:9 flatscreen TVs.
The sibling comments are spot on, but also worth noting IMAX is not something you're going to get at a regular multiplex, and definitely not at home. The screens are like 10 storeys high and designed to completely immerse you. While it's much better than 3D, for example, it's not supposed to be the new thing for all films.
It went much farther - CinemaScope 2.35 to 2.75, or even Polyvision 4.0.
To me, the big wide screen Hollywood titles are 2.35:1.
To me IMAX 70 is cropped on the left and right compared to CinemaScope. Watching an IMAX 70 film in a normal theatre at wide screen aspect ratio crops the film again, so it’s effectively cropped on all four sides.
IMHO, the only reasons for using 70 mm IMAX are nostalgia and marketing. Digital movie cameras have far better color reproduction, more dynamic range, zero frame jitter, and plenty of resolution without grain. They are also small and silent which allows far more interesting shots than what is possible with a 70 mm monster. Kubrick and Lean used 70 mm because it was the best technology available at the time. Today, the best technology is digital.
I think it's misguided to say things like "IMAX 70 mm has an equivalent of 18k resolution." But have you seen a 70 mm IMAX projection? In my experience, the 70 mm image looks noticeably sharper than an equivalent 4K digital IMAX projection.
1.43 IMAX 4K is also a great experience, but its resolution is a meaningful and noticeable limitation given its massive angular image size. It's a compromise compared to a more traditional 4K cinema screen (like a typical Dolby Cinema screen): with IMAX 4k you gain angular image size and lose "pixels per degree of visual angle." And both are noticeable!
I agree with you that the latter has all the advantages you listed, but there is still something truly special about the apparent resolution of IMAX 70 mm projection.
I agree, I actually saw specks when viewing the Odyssee on 70mm IMAX. Sorry, but how is that "better" than any clean, digital projection? And the hoops they apparently jump through to make it work during the shoot to get to that point. Pure nostalgia hysteria.
I'd say one of the advantages of analog filming is it's more expensive to "color correct" digitally after. So maybe you get less monochrome films?
Digital cinema projectors are mostly stuck to narrow colour spaces so most often than not people will have better colours on film projections rather than digital. Same thing for dynamic range. Keep in mind that DCP standards have really not been updated since like 2010.
>To understand IMAX, it helps to know how movies are captured in the first place. Many are shot digitally, as it's cheaper and more convenient than using film. However, many filmmakers still want, well, film
The illogical part about this process is that they convert the shot film to digital, they add CGI and color correction and then they print back the digital version to....film.
So the whole point of shooting a Hollywood movie on film today is because some directors like....film. There is no practicality/cost/reasoning to it.
Some directors like the appearance of film... Given that the spectacle is a large part of the reason we go to the cinema, the colour fidelity and (and in the case of IMAX) unique scale and aspect ratio are the point... Not sure why practicality or cost would override that?
As a director who doesn't shoot on film - I still see the appeal, there's a particular quality to skin tones - especially in response to older arc lights and the like - that digital still doesn't quite capture. Ditto motion cadence, halation and grain that are all emulated in digital post to greater or lesser degrees of fidelity.
I don't think it's as illogical as it sounds. The qualities of the signal you feed your digital pipeline are very important to the finished product. And i'm using the plural intentionally here : not quality as in "it's better" but qualities as in "it has specific characteristics".
I can more easily relate to music production which i have passing experience with. The analog would be : if you plug your guitar directly in a preamplified audio card, you'll get the cleanest possible signal, right ? Then you'd just have to post-process it through a virtual cabinet and a bunch of effects to get exactly the sound you want. Except in most cases you'll get better results by plugging a guitar on an amplifier and putting that amp in a room with a microphone pointing to it. All that hardware will natively give you a better sound than you could achieve with reasonable effort on a fully digital workflow. Not better quality (in fact you're probably losing definition on that signal at several points in the chain), but qualities that on average will make the sound more pleasing to the ear. You can still manipulate the sound with virtual effects all you want, it will still retain the "grain" of the original setup.
Shooting film is a different production process than digital. Shot times, color reproduction, dynamic range, the size of the equipment, etc. all impact how movies are shot. Even acting is impacted due to each take having tangible costs. Limitations on how many cameras you can use also changes how you go about shooting.
The beauty of analog production, whether cine, still, or audio, revolves around working with and around the limitations of the process. Yes, when all we had was film/tape we dreamed of being set free of the many limitations of the media. Restrictions do force decisions though and many artists feel more inspired working within limitations. All that’s to say that the choice to do things in the analog realm impact how things are made and therefore has an impact on the final product even if post and display are done digitally. Cinema as an art form is due in no small part to how you work with film.
This is purely my opinion. I see 70mm as mostly a movie scam to extort exorbitant amounts of cash from a ticket for something that's vaguely noticeable outside the aspect ratio itself.
Note that I'm not disputing that there is a visual difference, there is, the image is clearer, shaper, with better darks, but the entry fee paired with how out of the way 70mm is, it's just ends up feeling like FOMO.
My opinion doesn't hold much value since I just dislike the cinema experience in general. I like being able to control the environment I'm in when watching something (pausing, eating, loudness...) and whenever I go to cinemas I have to deal with people having their smartphones screens brighten up, people yapping and laughing at things that aren't funny, eating noises, etc...
I'm curious about the opinions on 70mm (non-IMAX) vs Digital IMAX.
What do you prefer if you have tried both. Because those are the only mostly accessible options around the world.
Sound is also something to consider, because depending on the Theater they might have wildy different sound setups even different audio standards.
The DC area used to have two IMAX theaters with film projectors: one at the Natural History museum, and one at the Air & Space museum.
The one at Natural History lost tons of money. They eventually took it out, sold it for parts, and replaced it with offices and a cafe (which does make money).
They kept the theater at Air & Space, but converted it to IMAX digital. As a result, they are able to easily show pretty much any first-run movie, as well as revivals. That helps them sell a lot more tickets.
The real essential difference in IMAX is the physical shape of the theater. A real IMAX theater has very steep seats that are close to an absolutely huge screen, with huge speakers behind it. As opposed to the “IMAX” found in cineplexes where they just took their largest theater and upgraded the projector.
Films really should be shot differently for IMAX. Closeups need to be a lot less close up. People shouldn’t have to turn their heads side to side just to see one or the other eye of your character. IMO it’s a mixed result in The Odyssey. Directors just can’t resist closeups of actors. And the movie needs to work in regular theaters where most people will see it.
The thing is: It's kind of irrelevant for most theatergoers, as there are only 24 IMAX 70mm venues in the whole country. And many of them don't even show theatrical releases.
For example, I used to live in Houston, and we tried to find a 70mm theater for OPPENHEIMER. There aren't any there despite being a city of nearly 8 million.
I go to IMAX to see less smartphones show up during the movie.
The rest is just icing on the cake.
An IMAX 70mm drama is by necessity blurry because of the low depth of field you get with such a large image frame. IMAX is great for flyover films, but a movie filmed in it will look amateurish compared to a standard RED digital camera.
That said, the Odyssey is a perfectly decent film. It would have looked better if captured with more appropriate technology, but it's an entertaining and uniquely American spin on the story.
I wonder when there will exist camera and (laser) projection systems - and with that, movies - that cover even more of the human visible color gamut
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/10/imax-with-laser-supe... mentions that with IMAX Laser:
> Colour-wise, the full Rec. 2020 gamut/space is available—though we weren’t shown any films/trailers that actually made use of this larger colour space; they all used the DCI’s standard P3 colour space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020
I have no idea how well the analog film compares there
https://moultano.wordpress.com/2026/06/19/where-to-find-the-...
Reading this made me start to remember how my thinking changed around expensive/elaborate gear and art.
When an artist performs a gig or releases an album, no one really remembers or connects with the fact that the audio went through some insane signal chain, no one at their gig would hear the difference between a $500 guitar and a $12,000 guitar.
What resonates with people and what people will remember is the writing, the performance, the story, the energies... Everything else is the 0.1%, and yes it can stack but it's still on the peripherals.
Everyone I respect in the arts has done the full bell curve, started out with crappy fundamentals -> gear will solve all my issues -> gear is marginally important but the fundamentals were always key. It's really interesting to me to see people I should expect to be on the other side of the bell curve still obsessing with marginal gains.
My favourite movies, I couldn't even tell you what it was filmed on, and it probably could have been filmed on a range of comparible mediums and I would have never known.
I find the sound system to be more compelling than the projection system.
The audio amplification in some IMAX venues are rated for more power consumption than their projector lamp. 15kW across 12 channels in some cases. You could never recreate this part of the experience at home. The power you could replicate but not the acoustics of a gigantic auditorium combined with that power. You can get 20hz floor shaking in small parts of your living room where the standing waves build up, but at imax it works smoothly across every seat.
Some locals I know built a few of these cameras. I just ran into one of them the other day.
They started the local makerspace. There was an article last week in the local paper about it.
https://cdapress.com/news/2026/jul/25/couples-imax-camera-fi... {view it in a private window}
I've recently been to a planetarium which was pretty cool. It has in theory even better specs: 45 million pixels (8K has 33 million), ~500nits, 60Hz. It did seem to use PWM at very low brightness though
https://planetariums-database.org/list_projectors.php?menu=l...
It's interesting to me when I go to the cinema how poor the quality is compared to at home on an OLED TV. The blacks are so grey and dark stuff is hard to make out.The resolution is far less noticeable than that (but obviously worse).
Seems to me the real improvement in cinema would be OLED-style contrast ratio panels. Is this a thing being worked on?
I enjoyed the Odyssey movie, but didn't think it looked that good. Too sharp and kind of fake looking, almost like TV. (To be fair, I don't live in a real city so we just have LieMAX.) Disappointing visually, but I did quite enjoy the "Braveheart meets Greek myth meets Jason Bourne" aspect of the whole thing.
In the LA area, both Regal and AMC have a number of IMAX 70mm theaters. Universal City AMC and Irvine Spectrum Regal both have the biggest IMAX screens. TCL in Hollywood has the next biggest. The downtown Regal and Burbank AMC are in the third tier (bit still very large).
All of these theaters have IMAX 70mm film projectors.
I've seen a real 70mm projection print, the sharpness combined with brightness is hard to describe. But nowadays I can't find anything close to me that has this option.
What I do know is that most movies in cinemas these days aren't even close.
How does "shooting" on 70mm relate to the projection of the 70mm? I have absolutely no idea how any of this works, but are there no CGI effects in the movie or how does the CGI get on the film?
For those in the Bay Area, AMC Metreon has the capabilities to show the best of all of these formats: 70mm film, dual laser GT, and also a Dolby Cinema theater in there as well.
IMAX really cheapened their brand with the LIEMax format. Most "IMAX" are actually LIEMax, projecting a 4K image and not even with the extra tall IMAX aspect ratio.
Most "IMAX" branded theaters these days are just the biggest screen in the cineplex rebranded and with a more expensive (but still 4K) projector.
Maybe related:
Melbourne, Australia has the full 70mm IMAX screen. It's the only one in Australia.
Hollywood auteur clowns shooting om formats that no movie plex actually uses. I admire the grift.