1789

The 11-mile long, 600 lbs IMAX print of ‘OPPENHEIMER’ (i.imgur.com)

submitted 1 year ago by hardypart@feddit.de to c/pics@lemmy.world

337 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] fernfrost@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

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

[-] average650@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] atempuser23@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The projection technology doesn't exists yet to fully match the quality of an IMAX film print. Some places are going for LED walls to get over that projection limitation.

[-] nnullzz@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I don’t know if perfect reproduction necessarily sounds better. It’s probably subjective, but projects I’ve worked on that were tracked with tape have a quality that you can’t get from digital. I’m not talking about tape hiss or anything like that. There’s a roundness to the sound.

[-] average650@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

True! Analog can distort the audio in a way some people like.

But, it is a distortion. It's not there in the original audio. Sometimes, that is desired though.

[-] beatle@aussie.zone -2 points 1 year ago

Valves and vinyl still sound better

[-] average650@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Some people do like the distortion that analog audio provides, that's true. But it is because of something that wasn't in the original audio. It's an artistic choice.

[-] guy@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Yeah, but they're likely digitally editing it all now, so it loses that in the middle of the process. Can't really see why it would make sense to print a digital file back onto film

[-] Thunderbird4@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Despite being what a lot of analog fetishists focus on, a purely analog editing chain is not necessarily what causes the effects that they actually like about analog media. Most of it comes from the playback media itself. In the case of vinyl records, there's mastering techniques that have to be used to make sure the needle stays in the groove that some people feel sound better. There's minute harmonic distortions that people prefer over the perfectly clear and clean sound of digital. In the case of film payback, you have actual image frames being flashed on the screen. You have shutter dwell where no image is shown at all while the next frame is being advanced. You'd never consciously notice the flicker, but it affects the way you perceive the image and the motion on the screen. Film can have very high contrast and there may also be minor differences in color profile due to being displayed by pigments rather than being created digitally. Most digital media these days is technically far superior to it's analog counterpart. It just happens that it's the limitations and artifacts of the analog media that some people find pleasing.

[-] guy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I like vinyl too. But digital to analog conversion is always imperfect. I don't see that being too fitting for an IMAX cinema, where the aim is just biggest and best, no niche. Aesthetic imperfections are more fitting for arthouse and such I think.

However, I read into it some more now and it's quite interesting. In the case of Oppenheimer, they actually do manage to avoid the digital conversion for much of the film!

For movies shot on film, all of the film negatives are scanned to digital files so that they can be edited using AVID, and the process continues as before. The finished movie can then be "printed" back on to physical film using a laser scanner, which is how most film prints are made these days. However, some filmmakers like Christopher Nolan refuse to use this method, because it doesn't allow you to take full advantage of the resolution of IMAX film. So in Nolan's case, once the movie is finished, an Edit Decision List (EDL) is created, which contains a text list of all the edit points in the film, and which physical pieces of film negative those correspond to. Then, a person called a Negative Cutter actually physically cuts together and assembles the film negative to create the movie in the analog realm. It's a very specialized profession - there are only one or two people in Hollywood that still do it!

[-] Thunderbird4@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's pretty cool. Of course Christopher Nolan would insist on editing on film. I bet Tarantino and a few others would as well. In the case of laser printing vs optical printing, he's probably right, especially at IMAX scale. And you're absolutely right that he's choosing it because it's the highest possible fidelity, whereas someone like Tarantino chooses film for sentimental, kitsch, and artistic reasons. Apparently digital IMAX is still only about 4k at best. In the audio world though, analog DACs really are perfect reproduction many times beyond what is perceptible in sound. Compared to cutting to vinyl from tape, or even transferring from tape to tape, digital is orders of magnitude higher fidelity to the source signal. There's lots of reasons to love analog audio, but higher measurable fidelity is not among them.