• Jefflix@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well you could argue making movies is unnecessary altogether. This is art and this is the medium used by the artist.

      It’s not about image quality of film vs digital, it’s about the feel and texture of the experience as a whole.

      Just knowing there is an actual film being rolled and having light shun through it while watching it is part of that experience.

      • arc@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you can’t tell the difference on the screen it should make no damn odds how the image was stored.

    • biscuit@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree. Have you ever been to a real 70mm IMAX screening? I don’t mean your typical “IMAX”. There’s only a handful in the whole world.

      The quality is gorgeous, and the screens are huge. You also get significantly more of the frame than you will in traditional cinema and on bluray releases.

      Don’t call it unnecessary until you’ve actually seen it. Digital IMAX isn’t close yet.

      • arc@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The reason it’s unnecessary is that digital can completely capture a 70mm in high enough resolution that you perceive no difference at all. 8 or 16K projection is completely feasible in commercial projection systems. It means the cinema only has to deal with a small box instead of an enormous roll of film.

        That doesn’t mean either digital IMAX since that’s old tech using something like 2K projection which isn’t adequate.