INTERSTELLAR WAS SO BIG IT ALMOST BROKE IMAX

[ahhming]

At 2 hours, 47 minutes, and 7 seconds, Interstellar is the longest Imax presentation ever.

All that film is wound up and placed on a 72-inch-diameter platter; fully loaded it weighs 600 pounds and takes a forklift to move.

 

Source:

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/interstellar-imax/

[terrytek]

Ok.... NO NEED FOR CAPS.

[Spongy141]

Lol wow.

[EarthboundHero]

Is there a reason theaters aren't all digital yet?

[Guest]

Saw it in the T-Rex theater (pseudo-IMAX here in Vermknt), I think it was digital but it was definitely the 8K version.

[Guest]

Is there a reason theaters aren't all digital yet?

Film does provide a certain quality lots of people like. Just like records.

[ahhming]

Ok.... NO NEED FOR CAPS.

sorry lol , was on mobile  :unsure: .

[Enderman]

No it didnt "almost break imax". The film reels they use are rated for more than that, and will work perfectly fine with a 3 hour movie. If there was any chance of damage they would not have been able to make the movie that long.

600 pounds is about normal for an imax movie.

And please dont spam with caps.

[terrytek]

Is there a reason theaters aren't all digital yet?

Who cares. Film is the best standard.

[Enderman]

Is there a reason theaters aren't all digital yet?

This is Imax. There are no digital technologies available at this moment that can do a 16k projection.

[EarthboundHero]

Who cares. Film is the best standard.

Digital is a hell of a lot cheaper, it would save so much money for theaters. Not saying film isn't great but surprising it hasn't changed yet.

[EarthboundHero]

This is Imax. There are no digital technologies available at this moment that can do a 16k projection.

Makes sense.

[W-L]

I wonder what happen when it has a paper or in case film jam  :wacko:

 

 

Digital is a hell of a lot cheaper, it would save so much money for theaters. Not saying film isn't great but surprising it hasn't changed yet.

 

It's more tradition and quality of analog some people like. I believe it was also before where they had 4k on film via IMAX before they had implemented 2k and 4K projector in those theaters.

[Recon97]

Dun givv aay damnn

[totjup5]

Interstellar was fantastic.

[Misanthrope]

Film does provide a certain quality lots of people like. Just like records.

 

Aye, a true film snob would watch it on french and while rubbing sand on his eyes

[zenix12]

Film does provide a certain quality lots of people like. Just like records.

I agree. I love Film.

[imthewalrus]

I cant believe I watched a three hour movie without having to think that it is a three hour movie. 

[brownninja97]

boolywood dont give a fuck, 3hour+ movies occur every 5 seconds.

[Tech_Dreamer]

So much ammunition for a 'yo mamma' joke ..

 

i think the same thing happened with "Avatar" at some point ,

[DuckDodgers]

Sadly, many "IMAX" cinemas around the world are still equipped with only 2K digital projectors. The screening I attended was tampered by the quite visible pixelation -- the huge screen and the low-res source is definitely breaking the immersion a bit. I could understand the insistence Nolan had, to use 70mm stock for the premiere run.

[HerEscutcheon]

Interstellar was so big, when it sat around the house, it sat around the house.

[StingBull]

So is the film any good or is it a pile of 600 pounds shit?

[Guest]

For the record, I love the movie. Great acting, sound work, and the practical effects gave it a very realistic feel.

But the ending though! ;_;

[dalekphalm]

Is there a reason theaters aren't all digital yet?

Aye as @Enderman states, IMAX Film is still actually SIGNIFICANTLY ahead of current Cinema Projection technology. Approximately 16K+ resolutions. Regular 35mm film can be more or less matched with 4K Digital, but until we get higher resolution (and higher colour depth) digital projectors, then IMAX 70mm film will still pretty much be the best cinema recording technology available.

 

The only reason more filmmakers don't use IMAX 70mm, is because apparently it's a TOTAL BITCH to work with. Not to mention the huge added expensive, of you know, lugging around actual film stock, compared to just offloading an SSD.

 

This is Imax. There are no digital technologies available at this moment that can do a 16k projection.

This!

 

Interstellar was fantastic.

Agreed. My movie of the year so far.

 

So is the film any good or is it a pile of 600 pounds shit?

Personally, I thought it was fucking awesome. Such a brilliant piece of work. Matthew McConaugheyhey did a fantastic job. People still often think of him as the slow drawling dumbass with nice abs, but in the last couple years, he's really shown his acting chops. I'd say this was his best performance yet.

 

Also, the science. THE SCIENCE! Everything about the movie is about as accurate as we can get (without it being a boring pile of shit once they get into deep space). Even the more "out there" concepts of the movie all have scientific backing or some basis in theory.

 

The visual effects, HOLY MOTHER OF BALLS, this movie should win best VFX for sure. They created a ton of sets and practical effects, which really sold the suspension of disbelief. They even created "miniatures" for the Ranger space shuttle, the lander drop ship, and the deep space vessel. Of course, "miniature" takes on a whole new meaning when the set pieces are over 20 feet long!

They started calling them "Maxatures" during production because of how big they were. The Endurance (Deep space vessel) had a 25-foot long model, and the Ranger and Lander had a 46-foot and 50-foot model made respectively. That's freaking HUGE!

 

Anyway, I personally loved the film. I think it's the modern generational equivalent of 2001: A Space Odyssey.