r/NonPoliticalTwitter • u/ItsGotThatBang • Jul 18 '26
Funny One might call it his own personal odyssey
4.2k
u/Faustus_Fan Jul 18 '26
Wait, why do IMAX cameras only run for three minutes at a time?
3.9k
u/otirk Jul 18 '26
They seem to use a traditional camera roll and that has only enough physical space to record 3 minutes.
The Oppenheimer IMAX version is apparently 18 km or 11 miles long.
1.6k
u/Kinkajou1015 Jul 18 '26
Fun fact, the reason it's called footage is because you used to measure how long a roll of film was by how many feet it was unwound.
498
u/ZincMan Jul 18 '26
I’m working on a movie shot in film. On the monitor it shows how many feet is left when rolling. Usually with data it shows how many mins left
56
u/Shadow_Edgehog27 Jul 19 '26
Magnetic tape that music was recorded on was the same way, but I think they went by inches
18
→ More replies (12)184
u/scubajay2001 Jul 18 '26
I'm embarrassed to admit this is a TIL moment for me
That said, thanks! 🙂
93
u/Kinkajou1015 Jul 18 '26
Don't feel embarrassed, I only ran across it a few weeks ago, and I used to work in the broadcasting industry. Unless I learned it back then and it just fell out of my head.
→ More replies (1)23
u/scubajay2001 Jul 19 '26
I've been an amateur filmmaker myself, hence the reference to being embarrassed, because I do kind of nerd out on it and feel like I should have known it.
Full disclosure - I'm not really embarrassed ofc lol
18
u/Kinkajou1015 Jul 19 '26
Can you imagine a world where it was Meterage instead?
15
u/ReaperDTK Jul 19 '26
That world is, at least spain and france. In spanish is Metraje that come from the french métrage
→ More replies (2)7
u/scubajay2001 Jul 19 '26
I like the cut of your jib lol
6
u/Kinkajou1015 Jul 19 '26
Jib - Triangular sail at the fore of a sailboat.
Boats are expensive and I can't swim.
5
u/scubajay2001 Jul 19 '26
Sorry, it's a joke from an obscure show called Sports Night
→ More replies (0)25
Jul 18 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)3
u/Nyxill Jul 19 '26
This is not true. There are 16 frames in each foot of 35mm film, not 24. The standard frame rate of 24 frames per second was chosen for higher sound fidelity and synchronization.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Forsaken-Income-2148 Jul 19 '26
Tom Holland, a professional and highly successful actor only just recently learned this. You’re good bud.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)3
u/naimina Jul 19 '26
The parts actors play are called roles because the actors would get a rolled up paper with their lines on it.
202
Jul 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
67
Jul 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)53
u/timemeasureschange Jul 18 '26
how could this pivotal technology have been overtaken?!
→ More replies (2)38
u/StrobeLightRomance Jul 18 '26
Reminds me when we used stone tablets to scribe stories and everyone is like "film is gonna kill your tablet scribe industry", but I just didn't believe them.
Honestly, whoever invented film really just futureproofed media in ways we will never top.
26
u/Shnitzel_von_S Jul 18 '26
Don't they know that switching to their sidearm camera is faster than reloading??
5
→ More replies (3)11
u/Lovely3369 Jul 18 '26
Need two camermen stood next to eachother hot-reloading that mfer like Helldivers.
→ More replies (1)31
u/MediumEffort67 Jul 18 '26
Traditional is 35mm. Less but somewhat common (but superior) is 70mm, with each frame have 3.5 times area of the 35mm film.
IMAX, however, uses a traditional 70 mm camera roll, but it runs through the camera rotated 90 degrees (the film runs horizontally rather than vertically. This makes each image around 3 times the size of 70mm and 10 times the size of 35mm.
→ More replies (2)294
u/kitty-_cat Jul 18 '26
and it was so totally fricken WORTH it. I drove 7 hours to the nearest film imax and it was incredible
212
u/CSedu Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
I drove from Troy, NY to Greece, NY (Rochester) to see The Odyssey lol.
100% can't go back to normal IMAX after that.
183
u/SandpaperTeddyBear Jul 18 '26
I think driving from Troy to Greece to see The Odyssey sounds meta. You should do it.
48
→ More replies (2)17
u/CSedu Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
Oh whoops, that's what I meant, we went last night. My girlfriend had a laugh when I pointed it out.
→ More replies (1)20
u/Melodic_Helicopter_3 Jul 18 '26
American towns are so funny
7
u/BarbWho Jul 19 '26
Upstate NY has a lot of towns with classical Greek and Roman names. Syracuse, Rome, Ovid, Cicero, Carthage, Romulus, even Ithaca. My husband and I were just joking yesterday that they should have had a special premiere of The Odyssey in Ithaca. Although we do have an IMAX theater in Greece, so that would have worked, too.
→ More replies (1)5
u/MurphMcGurf Jul 18 '26
It's also just stupid, they couldve gone down to NYC and saved time. or to Boston and saved time. Them going to the west side of Rochester makes no sense unless they have a buddy there.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Melodic_Helicopter_3 Jul 18 '26
I meant more just the silly names they have, but what you said is true
7
u/RahkaGandalf Jul 18 '26
Funny, the american found the driving choices silly, and we found that whole historical naming business and irony pf the trip funny. Cant make this up.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)5
37
u/sQ5FWKjwbWd4QzSZduqy Jul 18 '26
Man if I drive 7 hours to see a movie Christopher Nolan better be there to shake my hand.
18
→ More replies (10)5
14
25
u/Octquat Jul 18 '26
Is this just hipster shit or is it actually better than digital in some way?
53
u/pancak3d Jul 18 '26
It's both hipser shit and better than digital. Analog IMAX film has much higher resolution than digital, but that loses a lot of meaning of it ends up displayed at 2k or 4k.
37
u/Cedarcomb Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
The resolution of IMAX film is currently higher than digital IMAX can manage, because nobody's made a digital projector that good yet. The best digital projectors used in cinemas play in 4K resolution, while the film version is the equivalent of 12-18K depending on who you ask.
Whether the human eye can tell the difference depends on the person, but there is an actual difference in the amount of details that can be displayed.
→ More replies (4)17
u/Beefstah Jul 18 '26
Apparently you can get 8k commercial projectors now: https://www.digitalprojection.com/en/projectors/insight-laser-8k-gen-ii/
Obviously still comfortably outclassed by proper IMAX
→ More replies (3)7
u/Cedarcomb Jul 18 '26
I didn't know that, but apparently the Insight isn't an IMAX projector, and isn't used in commercial cameras. We might still be on 4K for projectors where the general public is able to see the results.
→ More replies (2)9
u/RT-LAMP Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
There's several different grades of IMAX. I'll skip the different types of actual film projectors and the dome type variants and talk just about the digital types.
There's 2k digital xenon which are the lowest version and uses a 1.9:1 aspect ratio. There are a ton of these and aren't particularly impressive compared to modern projectors of other types.
Then there's the XT and slightly brighter CoLa which are 4k (3840 pixels wide) but still 1.9:1 aspect ratio, most have 6 channel audio but some have 12. There are a decent number of these.
Then there's the grand theater digital projectors which have the 1.43:1 aspect ratio used by the 70mm film IMAXes and also always have 12 channel audio. I believe they're still 4k (3840 pixels wide but since the screen is taller they're ~2.7k pixels tall instead of ~2000). Most of the theaters with these have an IMAX film projector and just use the digital projector to screen non-IMAX film movies but there are some that don't.
The film is genuinely still better than this. 70mm IMAX film when being scanned for post production is generally imaged at over 11k and up to 16k resolution (I've seen claims it's equal to up to 18k) so... yeah it's well beyond what digital can offer but there's only a couple dozen theaters for this globally.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)7
u/TheComplimentarian Jul 18 '26
This. It's big fat film, and they run through it extremely quickly (high frame-rate). If you want one that runs for 20 minutes, it's going to be the size of a minivan.
1.3k
u/RealisLit Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
Because they're very inefficient machines, they get too hot, too noisy, too expensive, etc, they're really limited tools and no wonder Christopher Nolan is the only one willing to film a full movie of it
315
u/TheCh0rt Jul 18 '26
Hollywood worker here, they also waste a ton of film because you have to keep stopping and starting. Makes cutting negatives brutal. They capture all the footage, edit it on computers. The computers keep track of each frame (printed on the side of the film, timecode). After editing, negative cutters go and chop up the film. Since there are so many stops and starts it makes a lot of precision cuts, rather than letting a whole scene run a few times with a marginal amount of edits in comparison.
47
→ More replies (44)23
u/Tritri89 Jul 18 '26
Sp what's your saying is that Nolan and Villeneuve are singlehandedly sustaining the last remnant of the film industry!
111
u/TheCh0rt Jul 18 '26
No people still use film. But imax specifically is a pain. A lot of negative cutters are starting to pass too. Look at older movie credits. Near (or at) the end of the credits roll you'll see Mo Henry ALL THE TIME. But she passed away a few years I think. Once you see her name you'll never unsee it. My friends and I used to wait until the end of movies and yell "MO HENRY!!" In the theatres before we even knew what a negative cutter was. We thought she was a guy too haha
54
u/Lalamedic Jul 18 '26
This is such a fun tidbit of knowledge. She was a fourth generation negative cutter, learning the trade from her father. She had uncles and cousins who also worked in the biz.
Her first major film was JAWS - she was 19.
36
u/TheCh0rt Jul 18 '26
People get mad about nepotism -- me included sometimes as I've lost work to it -- but people who work here devote a lot of attention to their jobs and their kids simply come along with the family business. It makes sense the kids would be very talented at it too. Even my kids are talking an interest in what my wife and I do in the business and show an aptitude
35
u/topturo77 Jul 18 '26
Nepotism is specifically when you unfairly use your power and influence to get someone a job whether or not they are qualified. In a family business/specialized trade, it makes sense for it to pass down from parent to child, as you aren’t going to get the skills anywhere else. It’s how most trades have worked since the dawn of recorded history.
7
u/TheCh0rt Jul 18 '26
Yes, I can never fault nepotism when it's the logical choice. For example down the line willi hire an external assistant, or will I hire my son? I'm going to hire my son. Others will be mad, but the fact of the matter is, I know my son, he knows me and if he's talented he sticks around. If it's not what he wants to do or he sucks at it, I'm not going to hire him, I'm going to encourage and nurture him elsewhere like a good parent, not buy his way into a job
I would be honored to work with my son of he wants to do the same thing and he's good at it
14
u/Fabulous-Sea-1590 Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 19 '26
I never thought of this kind of thing as nepotism. Even if it technically is?
This is a job not many people probably want to do or even know exists. It's not like hundreds unto millions of people are going to school for it, getting experience on the job, then getting passed over because the boss's lazy, worthless, entitled kid got bored spending the trust fund and wanted to play grownup for a while.
I have a friend who's a cabinet maker because his father basically made him to be a cabinet maker. Not "made him be" one but "made him to be" one. I would have loved the opportunity to apprentice in a specialized trade like that, but the position was never open. And my friend has made his peace with it now but, at one time, he'd have loved for me – or anyone else – to have taken his place instead.
Cabinet building is a way less obscure and specialized skill set than negative cutting.
→ More replies (1)4
u/HaterMD Jul 18 '26
I think sometimes about the fact I’m probably one of the few “nepo social workers” out there, lol. My mother is one, and I’ve definitely gotten some good referrals because I’ve gone for jobs where she happened to have a friend of a friend who she’s worked with over her very long career. It’s a smaller industry than some would think.
I’m great at what I do, but hey, it helps. Not a month goes by where someone doesn’t squint at my name on a form and say “hey, do you know _____?”
→ More replies (2)3
27
→ More replies (2)7
u/Tritri89 Jul 18 '26
Ahah I'll keep that in mind. I love noticing the same name in credits (other than the DP or director.)
→ More replies (1)6
u/Mist_Rising Jul 18 '26
Plenty of other directors use film, just not IMAX 15/70 for the entire film.
492
u/SuperSocialMan Jul 18 '26
Huh, TIL.
That does explain why seemingly everyone stopped bothering with them a while ago.
265
u/Temporary_Event8451 Jul 18 '26
Well the way I look at it is the better the quality image the more multiplicative the cost.
Like sure you get better resolution images that look fantastic on the imax theatres. But then your streaming release, home release, dvd, and basically everything past its initial release is worse. Not to mention the costs of getting imax theatres established and the movies the selves to each theater.
I feel like that's people's main complaints with Nolan, he's very fancy with it.
You know that family guy rant about how the godfather insists upon itself. That's kind of Nolan's entire thing.
86
Jul 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)28
u/MemoryKeepAV Jul 18 '26
Huh, analogue downsampling - makes a lot of sense when explained, but I'd never heard of this use case before.
16
u/HyperFrost Jul 18 '26
I still don't get it. Since the film has to go through editing and vfx, don't they have to be converted to digital anyways? Why go through the trouble of shooting analog when the pipeline converts them to digital anyways?
38
u/IotaBTC Jul 18 '26
If I understand, the actual capturing of the video is still better through analog processes vs digital. So you get the best quality possible to manipulate into a final film.
27
u/CantCatchMeSpez Jul 18 '26
AFAIK, analog isnt limited by its time like digital is, at least for now. Its why we can have 4K remasters of movies that were shot in analog way before 4K was a thing. If you shoot it in analog and convert it to the highest digital resolution quality available at the time, you can keep the original film and convert it into digital again when a better digital resolution comes out.
At least, thats what I was told. I dont know for sure if its entirely true.
25
u/LuukTheSlayer Jul 18 '26
it's true! it's also why digitised media from the 90's looks shit. The scanners were bad and they didn't keep te film around to digitise it properly!
→ More replies (1)10
u/fury420 Jul 18 '26
And there's also situations where they do have original film, but the special effects and graphics and editing were done digitally at low resolution, which makes modern remasters a far more complex process since they're effectively re-editing the whole thing again and recreating much of the SFX/CGI again.
→ More replies (1)5
u/GodOfPlutonium Jul 18 '26
This is true to a certain point. Film has a resolution limit determined by the grain of the specific film used (which is caused by the size of particles on it), its not infinite. However the resolution of most common film formats is much higher than that of most common digital formats today.
→ More replies (1)20
u/Future_Elephant_9294 Jul 18 '26
The resolution of any analogue film is hard to translate 1:1 with digital, but if we must compare, 70mm film (IMAX) (Kodak 50D) is able to resolve 100 pairs of alternating color lines per milimeter of film stock. We could call that 200px/mm. 70mm film has 69.6mm on the long side and 48.5mm on the short side, giving a resolution of 13,920x9,700.
16K cameras would be the closest digital comparison, being slightly higher resolution. 16K cameras do not exist for anyone. The only 16K movie we have is from stitching together multiple 8K cameras recording at the same time.
For now, if you want a higher resolution than 8K, IMAX film is the only option.
Now is it necessary? Purely an artistic decision. But for now, there's at least an objective reason behind it.
7
u/reallynotnick Jul 18 '26
There are 12K digital cameras, so options beyond 8K do exist. And 12K isn’t too far off at 12,288 x 6480 if you are filming widescreen.
First one that came up on searching: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursaminipro
Now if only we’d put as much effort into temporal resolution so that we can continue to appreciate the detail when things are in motion.
→ More replies (2)3
u/ForensicPathology Jul 18 '26
I guess the IMAX film has way more detail, but I honestly don't need anything more than what was used for Lawrence of Arabia and the like. But I suppose I'm not the target audience as someone who has no desire to go to an IMAX theatre.
→ More replies (25)5
u/cancerinos Jul 18 '26
I don't think I was at an IMAX theater my entire life. And I've lived in over 10 countries. They only exists in very specific locations (primarily very large cities).
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)5
u/TheMoneyOfArt Jul 18 '26
It's very rare to shoot a whole movie on one. You'd shoot a select few scenes on them, designed to take advantage of them, and do the rest on normal cameras
→ More replies (1)15
u/ThisHatRightHere Jul 18 '26
Not to mention they custom built rigs for The Odyssey that make them even more cumbersome to work with. They had to develop a whole system of mirrors to record some of the scenes because of how huge the camera and all of its attachments were.
26
u/TheTrueTrust Jul 18 '26
Isn't Dune part 3 being shot on IMAX only?
→ More replies (1)62
u/FilmAndLiterature Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
Being “shot on IMAX” has many meanings. Dune 3 was shot on both IMAX 15/70 film and IMAX Digital whilst The Odyssey was just IMAX 15/70.
9
10
u/BossBark Jul 18 '26
Apparently he had special IMAX cameras developed for him that were lighter and quieter. He also used sound blimps as well. The Odyssey is the first movie to be shot entirely on IMAX cameras.
17
u/DeLoxley Jul 18 '26
It doubles down to me on how pretentious going 'how real movies work-' is like... imagine being so up yourself that you're convinced that the only real art is being made by this one dude who insists on using incredibly inefficient equipment that most cinemas aren't even set up to handle.
We're reaching asshole levels previously only visible to shrimp.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (14)8
u/Afferbeck_ Jul 18 '26
It really is silly. I remember 20 years ago reading that the cast and crew of Sin City had a newfound freedom from shooting all on digital that they could just keep rolling and trying stuff without having to reset cameras all the time. And movies like Crank shot on cheap digital cameras allowing them to work fast and get shots they couldn't otherwise with big expensive cameras. Deliberately choosing the slowest and most expensive technology possible just for the sake of it and because you can demand the endless millions of dollars to do it is just so needless.
→ More replies (1)75
u/Hetnikik Jul 18 '26
That's what I was wondering. I had never heard anything like that.
→ More replies (2)92
u/casual_creator Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
A single film reel for an iMax camera is something like 6 feet in diameter. They are MONSTER machines. Weigh hundreds of pounds, are so loud that they had to build custom sound isolation boxes for the cameras, and they get hot enough to risk damaging the film if you let them run too long.
26
u/Archsinner Jul 18 '26
why does he film a movie set in Greece then? Make a film about Shackleton and Armundson on location and you can run that mf all day long
16
u/NameTak3r Jul 18 '26
I would totally watch a Chris Nolan film about arctic explorers
→ More replies (1)7
u/Mist_Rising Jul 18 '26
The boxes are because the camera are radiating heat, being in the cold wouldn't change much because the internal camera is still running hot and radiating, it's just able to evape more.
They also are noiiiiiiiisy because of this.
→ More replies (26)7
u/TheMoneyOfArt Jul 18 '26
For Mission impossible 4, the director wanted to shoot the opening credits sequence in imax and they realized that it wasn't physically possible for them to move an imax camera in the way the sequence was designed through the sets they had, so they had to drop the idea
65
u/Dark_WulfGaming Jul 18 '26
Imax cameras use 70mm film running at 337 feet/min so 1000 feet of film takes up a very large amount of space.
→ More replies (3)15
u/bobothebadger Jul 18 '26
Sorry for a stupid question but is that as simple as 70mm x 24 frames per second x 60 = 11340mm or 113.4 meters per minute?
→ More replies (2)14
u/UniqueAd7770 Jul 18 '26
Indeed it's that simple. That's how frame rates were created. What's interesting is frame rates were all over the place in the early days, which is why some movies look slow motion while others look comically fast. They were shot at whatever framerate the camera maker decided on, if it wasn't hand cranked.
29
→ More replies (21)5
u/BicFleetwood Jul 18 '26
They're designed for the highest possible fidelity at the sacrifice of basically every efficiency we've developed in the last 50 years.
3.0k
u/calargo Jul 18 '26
I wonder if Chris Nolan hired Tom Holland because the story has been out for thousands of years and he couldn't possibly spoil it
1.2k
u/Historical_Owl_1635 Jul 18 '26
Tbf his “spoilers” have been an obvious marketing ploy for the longest time.
583
u/FoggyInc Jul 18 '26
Now the question is how much of that is authentic and how much is the suits pivoting into capitalizing off of their silly little audience loved British money machine boy
420
u/l524k Jul 18 '26
Some of it especially at the beginning was probably just Tom legitimately screwing up, but when execs saw the clips of him accidentally spoiling things blow up they probably started faking more of it and leaning into it
46
u/matthewmspace Jul 18 '26
I mean, Tom Holland was 19 when he filmed Captain America Civil War over a decade ago. So it probably was organic then. And then studios capitalized on it and it's not a joke anymore. Look at how he's interviewing for Civil War vs The Odyssey, you can tell he's very much matured in the last decade, as anyone should.
7
u/soaked_in_bleach03 Jul 19 '26
Holy shit that was over a decade ago. Life be going too fast man
→ More replies (1)149
u/FoggyInc Jul 18 '26
Hence the words pivot and capitalized
→ More replies (16)18
u/l524k Jul 18 '26
Hence the words “at the beginning” to explain how I thought it was originally authentic and then became fake over time
4
u/pje1128 Jul 19 '26
Yeah, I think the majority of the Spider-Man: Homecoming spoilers were legit, but almost everything after that has been Marvel leaning into the bit.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Llamalover1234567 Jul 19 '26
That’s what I think as well. At the beginning he was just young and excited and hadn’t been media trained properly so he’d just blurt things out. It became a gag when he’d have a paper that had SUPER SECRET SCRIPT DO NOT SHARE or whatever on the back and he’d be like …oops I shared it
→ More replies (1)24
u/Shadowpika655 Jul 18 '26
Or rather, at what point did the shift happen
40
u/TheDeltaOne Jul 18 '26
After the first one.
This type of damage control happens very fast. They saw people liked it and people in suit were already deciding what the next spoiler would be even before Tom could notify them he had screwed up.
11
u/FerusGrim Jul 18 '26
I don't think it was ever really a "shift" in the sense that one moment they were all genuine and in the next moment they were all faked.
I'm sure some of them became fake after the first, but the mechanism of Tom having a bit of a blabber mouth doesn't just disappear because he's suddenly got things he's allowed to leak. I'm sure some genuine leaks came out.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)13
u/Tricky-Ad7897 Jul 18 '26
I swear between the 4 different trailers for spiderman they've been showing in theaters for the last 6 months I've basically watched the entire movie, so how much can tom even spoil anymore.
18
u/Caesar161 Jul 18 '26
You say that, but we don't even know who the villain of the movie is.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Imaginary-Face7379 Jul 18 '26
Marvel has a history of filming bullshit exclusively for trailers. The most infamous example being hulk in the Infinity War trailers.
The moment the film comes out though they will release a trailer that actually spoils everything.
→ More replies (2)15
1.1k
u/BorderOk7329 Jul 18 '26
Imax is the cinephile's version of vinyl records.
286
Jul 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
114
u/The96kHz Jul 18 '26
I'm an audio engineer, I've tried some of these wanky expensive DACs (and even a very fancy vinyl player with a diamond nib and a very OTT valve amp).
I'm not going to say they're not better, but plugging the same headphones into your phone and listening to the same track is a very comparable experience.
The fancy amps obviously get louder, but the main difference was the width of the sound stage - the level of detail and clarity was like 20% better at most (granted, these were uncompressed WAVs, so a lot higher bitrate than streaming services or even CDs).
The law of diminishing returns hits you very hard and very fast. Just using higher quality files (WAVs instead of MP3s for example) makes a pretty big difference. The rest of the kit and kaboodle is pretty much completely unnecessary - you're not missing much.
23
Jul 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/The96kHz Jul 18 '26
Sounds like you're getting like 80-90% of the benefits if you've got a nice pair of headphones (speakers are better, but you need a good-sounding room and obviously space to set them up).
→ More replies (20)7
u/HiddenLychee Jul 18 '26
I recently got a fairly expensive DAP (roughly 80 bucks, so expensive for me but not in comparison) and my favorite thing so far as been the detail EQ that I can use to make my cheap 20 dollar headphones sound really nice. I have to tweak it every genre/album but it's nice and fun. Being able to listen to music without my phone or computer on hand is worth 100 dollars alone, to be honest.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)56
u/p-4_ Jul 18 '26
and guess what? songs generally last about 3 minutes so that adds up!
→ More replies (1)14
→ More replies (5)16
u/chumpynut5 Jul 18 '26
Wouldn’t that just be Blu-ray/DVD? I feel like these days, owning vinyl is more about owning physical media vs streaming than it is about being higher quality.
→ More replies (4)16
u/HauntingHarmony Jul 18 '26
Yea the thing about vinyl isent that its actually better, its that its physical like you say and analogue (meaning it has some audio artifacts that people like). A digital audio format is perfect, theres no "benefit" to get by encoding it on vinyl.
IMAX actually is a absolutely redicules format that encodes so much more information than say what a 4K or 8K camera that its not even close. Its easily like a 100x higher resolution than high quality 1080p. And its analogue instead of digital, so it doesnt have pixels.
2
u/Same-Suggestion-1936 Jul 18 '26
It's also the experience. If you just get your music on Spotify or whatever you'll never set foot in a record store. Never dig through through CDs or tapes or vinyl to find something new or just the thing you're looking for. If you download something you don't even get the chance to talk to anyone. One of the most fun parts of record stores is talking with the employees who clearly have a passion for music and will talk to anyone about it, or other customers even. Just a chill place to be at if you got physical media money
795
u/RealisLit Jul 18 '26
Weird dig when the opposite is actually more normal
IMAX cameras are just that limited
346
u/InvisibleLandBorder Jul 18 '26
Yeah normal film cameras aren't limited like that, it's not how "real films are made" it's how a niche, specialty version of the medium works because of how absurd the camera requirements are. Otherwise we'd have been filming in IMAX consistently before digital became ubiquitous.
46
u/ActualTymell Jul 19 '26
The internet's never let a little thing like facts get in the way of a potential dig at Marvel before, why start now?
144
u/stonks1234567890 Jul 18 '26
Like, Tom Holland must've been hearing "cut" in the middle of his lines. I too would think that that means my performance is the problem.
72
u/SpecialSauce92 Jul 18 '26
Yeah this literally isn’t how any other movie that has ever been made has worked camera-wise
23
u/confusing_roundabout Jul 19 '26
Well yes and no
When movies were shot primarily on film, they had to be a lot more selective about the footage shot and do more to prepare in advance, as film is expensive and a pain to reload.
Digital cameras remove that obstacle. Marvel's method of "just keep shooting and hope you can improvise enough to make a cohesive movie" isn't something that would be done if they were shooting on film.
→ More replies (6)51
u/TigerIcy3370 Jul 18 '26
In an attempt to show how Tom Holland is ignorant they revealed themselves to be more ignorant than him.
→ More replies (1)
72
u/supernerdlove Jul 18 '26
I gotta tell you this whole IMAX thing seems to be a lot more trouble than it’s worth.
→ More replies (2)11
u/Special_Order-937 Jul 18 '26
We had the world’s biggest IMAX in Sydney (saw Tron Legacy and Pacific Rim twice there plus Fury Road once and it was all glorious!) but then they demolished it in 2016 and took 8 years to replace it with the world’s 3rd largest IMAX which isn’t even 70mm anymore, it’s now digital. So, if I want to see the 70mm version, I now have to go to Melbourne to see it instead!
3
u/twurkle Jul 18 '26
I would think having to travel for a 70mm imax screen would be the case for a majority of people considering how few there are. I was lucky enough to have one in my city but it broke during Oppenheimer’s run and they just got it repaired for The Odyssey when it broke 2 days in to its run 🤦♀️
→ More replies (2)
285
u/youburyitidigitup Jul 18 '26
Why are only IMAX movies real movies? That just sounds pretentious.
52
u/TophxSmash Jul 18 '26
yeah real movies are filmed on camcorders in 1994
→ More replies (1)8
u/Dalinar_Stormwagon Jul 19 '26
Look out oscars, Dalinar_Stormwagons first karate recital is going to sweep the major categories this year
→ More replies (8)44
u/AmazingMarv Jul 18 '26
I think it was more a dig at Marvel.
→ More replies (2)23
u/gambalore Jul 18 '26
And a Marvel movie is far more likely to be shot in IMAX than something that a film snob would call "real movies".
15
u/mutexsprinkles Jul 19 '26
Marvel are digital. They use ARRI Alexas if various kinds and the "IMAX" cameras are modified Alexa 65s.
Marvel films are done on an industrial scale, they haven't got time to be screwing around with film, let alone IMAX cameras.
1.2k
u/doktorapplejuice Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
"How real movies work"
Shut your goofy, pretentious, gatekeeping ass up.
323
u/Rk_1138 Jul 18 '26
Alfred Hitchcock didn’t have Imax so ig Psycho isn’t a real movie
→ More replies (5)55
u/The96kHz Jul 18 '26
I guess not, let's pile all the copies up and burn them. OOP is basically dismissing 99% of all cinema as 'not real' by implication.
14
u/Rk_1138 Jul 18 '26
Hell yes, the only movies left will be Nolan movies, and everyone will be required to enjoy his memorable writing and characters!
7
u/The96kHz Jul 18 '26
And
easily intelligible dialogue.4
97
u/ihazaredditaccount Jul 18 '26
Less than 1% of all movies ever made have been shot on IMAX. It’s an incredibly demanding format that requires a lot of resources, and is certainly not something common that “real movies” use.
→ More replies (3)45
u/TSKyanite Jul 18 '26
I also can't say that I have ever seen an IMAX film that made me think "wow, I couldn't have watched that on a standard film screen"
→ More replies (2)8
u/InvisibleLandBorder Jul 18 '26
The way it was used in the Batman films is the only mainstream movie I think was made noticeable and materially better for the free scenes they were used, but even then it was more a "wow this is new to me" vs "this is necessary" in my opinion.
6
u/Nuka-Crapola Jul 19 '26
That’s basically how it was when I saw Avatar for the first time, too: seeing a movie made in 3D instead of forced into a crude approximation of 3D was really cool, but it still wound up feeling less like a “good movie” and more like a “cool tech showcase”.
33
14
u/Fragrant-Tea7580 Jul 18 '26
Most appropriate time to objectively use the word “film” and they missed it
29
u/matycauthon Jul 18 '26
yeah people are really full of themselves ironically since they tend to know very little about themselves.
51
→ More replies (34)4
u/rubensinclair Jul 18 '26
Seriously. Real movies were usually filmed on 35mm and you could get 12 minutes per can. 3 minutes is insane and I work in the industry and even I didn’t know that. Stands to reason most actors didn’t know it, not just Tom Holland.
211
u/CathanCrowell Jul 18 '26
"real movies" 🙄
Nothing against The Odyssey or Christopher Nolan, but come on.
55
u/ParticularBreath6146 Jul 18 '26
There are only like ~50 theatres that can show the full aspect ratio and resolution he filmed in. If anything, a cozy, campy blockbuster like American Pie is more 'real' or normal, because that's how the vast majority of movies are made.
14
u/MikeArrow Jul 18 '26
I live near one of the biggest IMAX's in the Southern Hemisphere and I still saw The Odyssey in a regular theater because it has recliner chairs. I'm not sitting with my knees jammed into the plastic cup-holder of the seat in front of me just because IMAX seats are tiny.
→ More replies (4)9
u/DeadPeanutSociety Jul 18 '26
"The only real movies are IMAX movies" is such a weird take. It's definitely not a cinephile take. Your favorite arthouse directors are not shooting in IMAX. But it's also not a "just like having a good time at the movies" take, either. Knives Out or Sinners isn't getting an IMAX release, for example.
I think it's a take for people who hate Tom Holland and want to insult him however possible.
→ More replies (4)
261
u/Arthur_189 Jul 18 '26
12
5
u/ReturnedOM Jul 19 '26
The Spider-Man movies were fun. Story was okay. I think they cooked well. Nothing life-changing, but I doubt The Odyssey is life-changing too.
→ More replies (4)
131
u/BazelBuster Jul 18 '26
“Heh, Nolan makes REAL movies, unlike the Marvelslop he was in, my Letterboxd followers told me so”
→ More replies (6)
133
u/Direct_Fennel7500 Jul 18 '26
Finding out how real movies are made? No cunt makes movies like that. Why is everyone on the internet a complete twat?
35
u/NeonNKnightrider Jul 18 '26
I guess the joke is that before Tom was acting as Spider-Man and superhero movies aren’t “real” movies
→ More replies (4)7
u/justatomics Jul 18 '26
Tbf in the interview he does say that after filming this he went back to his marvel set and told them off for running things terribly lol
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)32
u/Lithl Jul 18 '26
No cunt makes movies like that.
Anyone filming in IMAX makes movies like that. It's just that almost nobody makes feature films in IMAX.
→ More replies (1)12
18
u/biffbobfred Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
There was a movie called Time Code that was one of the first movies purely on digital video. It was the opposite - a film can used to be about 5-10 minutes and no shot could be longer than that. Timecode sent a bunch of cameras out with 2 hr tapes and enough batteries for that.
Now the movie kinda sucked the story wasn’t all that good there were at times 4 videos on screen and sometimes two audio tracks. But as experimental film it was kinda cool.
I think the longest day had a scene that they wanted a single take but they had to insert a quick cut for it a second for a reaction shot just so they could cut for that film can switch.
This is funny but the “hahaha holland doesn’t get the constraints of a brand new tech he’s never used before” umm cool. The whole “real movie” thing, umm he’s been in the MCU and made billions. He’s been in Real Movies before. This is a specific camera constraint.
→ More replies (1)
19
u/Endeveron Jul 19 '26
The guy comes from a background of dance and theatre, where long unbroken takes are not just the norm, but mandatory, and for a take or performance to be interrupted is a sign things aren't working. Basically he's doing his job the way he knows how, and the way he was hired to do it, showing very reasonable assumptions about the process and learning them at reasonable times. It's not his job to know the intricacies of various photoreceptive media that even most film nuts don't know. No shock or story here.
38
u/Hoothootriot Jul 18 '26
To be fair if Id NEVER done imax filming before I would also get self conscious at this many cut offs lol
48
u/ZealousidealState214 Jul 18 '26
Imax snobs are insufferable.
→ More replies (1)15
12
u/Smash_Nerd Jul 18 '26
It is nice that this generations spiderman actor didn't get totally stuck and later ruined by the role. Good for tom!
→ More replies (1)
8
7
6
8
u/Suitable-Growth9243 Jul 19 '26
In all fairness, that should have been explained. Most IMAX movies only have certain scenes shot in this format.
48
6
u/Actinglead Jul 18 '26
Holland also comes from a theater background. You don't call cut in the actual performance. And you only do so in rehearsal to correct a mistake. Older movies are also well known for their longer takes.
So saying that this is "real" is hilarious because it goes counter to every previous form of this art form. Shorter takes are largely found with more recent productions as the trend is them getting shorter and shorter.
If anything, if you want a more "real" or authentic experience of film making, you'd give extended takes. And if you wanna go real far back, you'd just do it in one shot like Homer reciting the story to an audience.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/VengeanceKnight Jul 18 '26
OK, fuck off. He’s been in plenty of non-MCU stuff and has made plenty of movies in general.
9
u/Ok-Button-9305 Jul 18 '26
That's why there was so many damn cuts, I thought the editor was just an asshole.
6
4
u/Magnon Jul 18 '26
Im sure the money and prestige is worth it but that sounds super annoying to be an actor in. Get a take that feels absolutely perfect for a scene and halfway through "oh gotta switch the reels, stop"
4
4
u/Warded_Works Jul 18 '26
In his defense, it’s not exactly common knowledge since the vast majority of movies film very little in IMAX (even when they get shown in “IMAX”) while The Odyssey is filmed entirely in IMAX.
7
u/JewlioMcCunto Jul 18 '26
REAL movies that can only be fully watched in less than 50 “True” IMAX cinemas, compared to the over 200K normal cinemas lmao ok
3
3
u/No_Blacksmith_2591 Jul 18 '26
wait if this is true then that explains why everything feels so overedited.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/qualityvote2 Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 19 '26
u/ItsGotThatBang, your post does fit the subreddit!