Quick thing I’d like to point out that I didn’t mention in the video: Super Panavision 70 (2.20:1 aspect ratio) and its anamorphic sibling Ultra Panavision 70 (2.55:1 ratio) - both 65mm systems, both use the same type of film as IMAX (just run through the camera vertically rather than horizontally like IMAX) and yet they still don’t feel quite as “large” as IMAX because neither are in the 1.43:1 aspect ratio that IMAX is (Dunkirk is a good example of this as it features both Super Panavision and IMAX - again, identical film stocks and sizes, just one (Super Pana) is vertically running through the camera and one (IMAX) is horizontally running through the camera, allowing it a larger image circle). Perhaps comparing Super/Ultra Pana to IMAX would have been a more apt side-by-side than VistaVision (which is shot on 35mm film, just turned horizontally like IMAX) but when writing the video VistaVision popped into my brain mostly because of that shared aspect of both being the horizontally shot cousin of another format. ALSO real quick point regarding sharpness/resolution/spatial fidelity - I mention in the video that IMAX’s resolute clarity only really exists up to about 6k (and is less sharp/has less fine detail resolving power than an Arri Alexa 65, also 6K), despite it being scanned in at 11K and some numbers like “18K resolution” going around pretty frequently. I just want to add that the fact that IMAX isn’t tack sharp or crystal clear is a good thing - I had the experience of watching a back to back 70mm film projection of Dunkirk followed immediately by an IMAX laser projection (was not a regular/public screening of the film), and the ultra sharpness of the high-res digital projection made it much easier to pick out flaws with the image, made the grain less pleasing, and all around made the image less painterly. The softness of film is almost always a benefit, and can actually make things look sharper and more clear by softening the less desirable aspects of large resolution imagery (you can of course soften a digital image as well, but the point I’m trying to make is that the 6K resolution limit on IMAX 70mm film is actually a benefit to its perceived sharpness, not a detractor).
I am a bit angry at the youtube algorithm right now as I have been obsessing over this very thing for years as well. And only a year after this upload does RUclips see fit to recommending it to me. And I have had the theory that "if you shoot it like IMAX, it will look like IMAX". No matter which camera is used. I am glad that I am not alone in this quest.
After seeing _Zack Snyder's Justice League,_ I guess you could say I have been spoiled. Because if you have shot an epic scale movie in IMAX 1.43:1 or in open gate 1.33:1, I don't want the image cropped to 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 when it's released to Blu-ray.
I was instantly hooked into this video once I seen that scintillating intro. I wanted to ask some things! 1. What lenses did you use to shoot the intro that kinda give that open/zoomed out feeling? 2. Would it be possible emulating this look on an X-S20?
Hello, the lens used in the intro was a Rokinon Cine 24mm attached to the XH2s with a metabones speedbooster! As for the XS20, I've never shot on one, but given that (apart from resolution, colorspace and dynamic range) the aspects I discuss here are all physical (ie relating to the t-stop/aperture size and focal length compared to sensor size), you should be able to achieve a similar effect!
To get the Imax look I used a Kipon Baveyes Ultra 0.7x Mamiya 645 To E-Mount. I happened to have a full set of lenses. But these lenses are still cheap. This reducer is a medium format lens to full frame focal reducer. I used it on my Red VV camera. This gave the best Imax look IMO. I also have a Fuji and a focal reducer for it. However the DOF at the same F-stops are not the same at all. But overall I do like your aspect ratio analogy for the look of Imax.
I think when you watch IMAX movies and you see the weird headroom they give, it’s because when they go into other formats, if they really frame for IMAX, they might chop off Cillian’s head or something, so they frame for other formats in mind because not everyone will see it in IMAX and they need to make money so…
There's something new on the block, or at least i just started hearing about it. The method of shooting a Large format cam, like the LF or the Venice in "Portrait Mode" and then have a 2x anamorphic on that so you go from a 2:3 to a 4:3. Sure seems like an interesting approach i think. I haven't thought about the implications of Aperture size in that regard but sure seems interesting.
@@PostromoPictures I think landscapers from HBO is partly shot that way. On a Venice with Cooke Xtals. "Lens Addiction" on instagram posted something about that a few days ago. Looks kinda fun :)
Thank you! Finally, a sensible discussion on what makes the IMAX look. I've argued with so many people about speed boosters as well - there are actual side by side comparisons here on RUclips showing it changes the look but some still won't accept it and think it's purely down to sensor size. Anyways, there's only one thing I disagree with you on here and that is resolution - I do stills photography on 35mm and 6x7 film. I've started doing scans on 35mm stills at 42mp and still finding more detail in the images than previously thought possible - bare in mind that 8k resolution is only 33mp! So, the 6x7 frames (which are nearly identical to 70mm IMAX) have an insane amount of detail which isn't currently possible to scan. We don't have the technology to do it, but they are way over 100mp easily by estimates. That means IMAX 70mm must be in excess of 30k resolution.
Thank you! I think there’s so many variables that affect the resolution of physical formats it can vary a ton. But seeing a print of 15/70 in an IMAX theatre is really the highest res format you can see today. I do think the natural softness of celluloid does actually work in the inverse and makes the image appear sharper, much like how a painting that appears detailed will intentionally make smaller elements less detailed to fool the eye.
Do I understand correctly that using a speedbuster on a full-frame camera together with a medium-format lens, I can achieve the same IMAX depth effect by simply cropping the edges on the left and right?
@@PostromoPictures Thank you, this is an interesting test. The depth is great, although it does not visually resemble what I see in the cinema. According to this logic, if the 1.4 Expander and S35 lens were used, the depth would disappear. And why do you think the same IMAX effect will not occur when using a 0.95, 1.2 full-frame lens on a full-frame matrix. If you also crop the image on the right and left?
@@onlinetraderucom It’s all a balancing act, so you could theoretically get what we tend to think of as a large format “look” (ultra shallow DOF) on any sensor size with a fast enough lens (to the physical limit possible) or speedbooster, and then crop the image to an appropriate aspect ratio and at that point it’s simply a matter of sacrificing as much resolution as you see fit (which can normally be pushed further than expected). As said in the video, it’s a combination of elements that people tend to associate with IMAX, not just sensor size, depth of field, aspect ratio or resolution on their own.
@@PostromoPictures Yes, it requires a non-standard view of perception. For a sense of vertical depth, you can flip the camera, framing an already vertical video on post-processing. Or, as already noted in the comments, we can use anamorphic lenses.
I guess in my own use case I want to get the most out of the frame possible so I would not want to crop. I’d like to have every pixel possible. I’m just trying to get more out of a Super 35 sensor not really trying to emulate the IMAX look if it means I should sacrifice pixels to do so.
I really appreciate the deep dive here. Also curious about the potential for certain anamorphic scopes to act like both focal reducers and “sensor wideners” for those cameras that can suit this particular aim. Some super 35 sensors when shooting open gate and rotated sideways become of similar proportion when de-squeezed in the usual vertical axis. Scale this up from recording 1080p raw to a minimum 6K, max 8K resolution, add the proper 65mm diffused grain and you’ve got something good in theory. Just another series of tests to conduct I suppose.
Would be something I'm interested in trying out for sure! Would have to be a very sharp anamorphic but most of the modern ones are quite sharp even wide open.
Hi Postromo Pictures:) I just wanted to ask where you acquired the soundtrack/music for this video. The soundtrack added so much to the end result. Really enjoyed the film emulation and direction. Thank you for your time. :)
@@PostromoPictures That is so cool! Thank you for sharing! :D Would this soundtrack happen to be copyright free? It would be great to use this soundtrack in the future.
@@br0wnman713 I don't own the copyright for it (RUclips allows certain channels to use copyrighted material so long as the ad revenue goes to the copyright holders, as in this case) but the song was written by Joel Beckerman of Man Made Music!
@@PostromoPictures oh wow! This is really great to know thank you for sharing. I also wanted to say thank you for your awesome videos! Your format is really great. Been a happy subscriber for a while. Happy Saturday! Hope you have a good rest of your weekend :D
I actually had this chat with someone recently, I'll post my reply here! - I haven't used or looked into the s5ii much so I'm not quite sure where it lands with regard to dynamic range etc, but I think it would ultimately come down to what you prefer look-wise and if you've got an ecosystem for a certain sensor size already (for example, I already had a ton of super 35 and apsc lenses that I wanted to be able to use on the XH2s, which is one reason I went with a super 35 camera instead of a full frame one. The other factor is that, considering I'm able to just throw on a speedbooster and get that full frame field of view, I saw advantages in being able to use both full frame and super 35 lenses on the camera rather than being confined to just full frame lenses). Although another advantage of a full frame camera is that you can use special medium format speedboosters to turn the full frame into an even larger sensor equivalent, which is a more complicated process on super 35.
@@PostromoPictures appreciate your input. For me, I’m not tied down to the Fujifilm ecosystem yet so I’m open to any brands that would give me what I want. The s5iiX with the speed booster sounds even more interesting considering we can adapt the medium format lenses. What about the open gate ratio? You know you mentioned that the xh2s has the closest ratio to the 1.43:1 , do you know if the open gate on the s5iix will provide better “ratios”?
There are a few things. Real quick: Yedlin used 5219 for the Resolution Demo, which is the highest grain film of the Vision3 family. 5219 is comparable to the Alexa in special resolution. That‘s why the Alexa 65 and the IMAX footage he used are so close to each other. Contact printed 5203, 5207, or 5213 are be considerably higher resolution than scanned 5219. Your camera like the Alexa uses a Bayer color filter to get a color image. So the XH2-S only comes out to about 4.3K of nominal resolution. And just like with the trash Ursa 12K nominal pixel count is pretty much meaningless. The 50mm T2 and 80mm T2 lenses Nolan has for his IMAX movies are the most shallow depth of field of any motion picture capture medium. An equivalent depth of field would be achieved with a 25mm T1 and 40mm T1 which as far as I know do not exist as cinema lenses and would very like not compare sharpens wise. And while your Rokkor has the light gathering ability of an f1 lens with the speed booster, it still has the depth of field of a full frame lens at f1.5. Which is very much an equivalent to what we see in many IMAX shots since Hoyte Van Hoytema often lights night scenes to a T2.8 for IMAX. So while not achieving the maximum of what is possible, shallow depth of field wise with IMAX at the 25mm equivalent focal length (see the tunnel chase in TDKR) it comes pretty close to the general look. At least as long as the XH2-as’ noise doesn’t interfere with the fine grain that IMAX film would have. I don’t think it would hold up against an IMAX film projection on an actual IMAX screen though. Lastly, Dehancer is a subpar film emulation and I keep waiting for Spectra Film to come out instead of using it.
Yes, I tend to agree, though I think it’s also important to note that most general audiences aren’t going to notice a perceivable difference between 2K and 4K, let alone 8K, 12K and beyond. Also by no means am I trying to say the XH2S is comparable spec wise to an IMAX 70mm camera, just that there are ways to recreate what we associate with the IMAX “look” on a low budget (I’d shoot on real IMAX 15/70 if I could, trust me)! It’s also why I think it’s worth noting that numerical resolution =/= perceived resolution - To general audiences, a high contrast 2K image will likely appear sharper than a flatter, lower contrast 4K (or even 8K) image. I’ve seen 2K projections on IMAX screens which hold as much punch as 4K laser or even 70mm film projections, which again is why I try to stress it’s not one aspect that is THE key to IMAX, rather many elements working in unison to immerse an audience. Some of those elements have more weight, yes, and some can be more easily recreated at a low budget level than others, but ultimately I’m willing to bet 99% of IMAX audiences would be entirely unaware of any technical difference between IMAX and standard theatre screens beyond simply screen size alone. Not that they don’t subconsciously notice these things, but rather that they’re not actively identifying and thinking about them.
@@PostromoPictures I agree also that you’re pretty successful with getting an IMAX look across. And I am very much on the fuck resolution side in this day and age. I’ve seen Avatar 2 on a GT IMAX screen with dual laser in HFR 3D meaning it was projected at 2K and it looked perfectly ok. Even back in 2015 I saw Rogue Nation at the massive BFI IMAX in London sitting really close to the screen. And that was projected at 2K using dual Xenon and I still had a blast with the movie. That being said and again, I agree that resolution is the least important part of the image pipeline nowadays, even Steve Yedlin says that it plays a more important roll in IMAX. I vividly remember seeing the 70mm IMAX print of Dunkirk at the BFI IMAX sitting a bit closer to the screen and being blown away by how far out in the distance I was able to make out individual leafs of grass. The only other time I felt this sense of hype real detail was watching a 70mm 5-perf print of Tenet on a huge second gen Cinerama screen. And this is not perceived sharpness, this is actually seeing more detail because you’re setting close to a very huge screen. So while 2K can look fine on a GT IMAX screen and deliver an enjoyable movie experience and dual laser can look great. This effect of total visual immersion was something I’ve only experienced on film. The detail was something I’ve noticed on my second screenings of these movies btw. Part of that I think is that digital projection technology doesn’t hold up to the capture mediums. Dual laser IMAX is great and all but I have yet to see a laser projection system that doesn’t have a specular grizzle, that has a profund effect on resolution. Seeing Nope in dual laser GT was no where near the same amount of spacial fidelity as Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX. When you’re watching something like an IMAX print of Dunkirk that was contact printed directly from the camera negative, the only factor of degradation will be the print stock. Which might add an almost imperceptible about of very fine grain. Look at Dune or The Batman. These were filmed out, onto intermediate stock and then printed onto 2383 in 35mm and scanned to make the digital master. And there is practically no grain from that in the image (really apparent grain in those movies comes from Greig Fraser shooting at higher ASAs). IMAX and large format screens can actually benefit from higher resolution capture and projection. But yeah. The rest is just as important. It’s not just how fast these IMAX lenses are but also that they are the most gorgeous medium format still lenses ever created. These Zeiss Planar designs are legendary and are a huge part or why these images look so real, even when stoped down a lot. Then there is the screen shape and theater geometry, sound system, and off course the fact that these movies are shot and in Nolan’s case finished on film. Even Steve Yedlin’s emulation just looks like scanned negative graded to have print like colors. An actual print is still a magical experience. I’m sure it can be replicated somewhat in VFX, I think Spectra will gave tools for that. But for now, I am super excited to see photochemical 70mm black and white IMAX in July!
@@VariTimo Interesting Discussion.. To light up only one part of it, i saw Interstellar 15/70 a few days ago, and the Trailer Show before the Film showed the new Trailer digit. IMAX Version of the Guardians of G. Movie on the 4k LASER GT Projector. I've had the ultmate Comparision. I can understand that for the Masses, this Laser 4K Version Quality is quite Ok. As you say, you can spot the litte grizzle but it's definitly not a bad Quality (We are talking about the pinnacle of digital Projetion on earth, IMAX 4K Laser). But when you see some of the 15/70 Scenes, it undoubtedly show who's the boss in the house. It's razor sharp on the whole massive BFI Screen, NO VISABLE GRAIN - i was surprised again and again, you're blown away by this endless resolution, rich colour and unreached Image. It's like a massive Linhof large format still photography, but moving. To this day, no digital camera, and importantly no projection system can recreate this input / output 15/70 Viewing-Experience, by far. Of course if youger generations never experienced 15/70mm, they will take that 4K Laser system. i'm absolute sure by now, even an native 8K DLP Laser System do not beat a 15/70, it would come close but would stay below that. And another thing for you, on the 44m Meter wide, largest (IMAX) Screen on Earth, the IMAX Leonberg, the 4K Laser Sytem shows clearly it's limits. Think about the difference on 26m (BFI) and 44m, same 4K Resolution. I was there for Avatar 2, which was an awesome Experience! It's just a different Thing, the 15/70 Projetions (and Look) are just in another World. On these massive Screens, trust me, you will see that Resolution matters. on these "20m" Cinemascope Superscreens, 4K is really a good Deal. In my words, it's a shame that Cinema Technologies are one of the worst transportet Informations ever.. that already let to the Death of some great technologies. Let's fight and comuniacte to remain the best of all, the 15/70mm Format
@@mixdown78 I know. I also just saw Interstellar at the BFI too. The BFI only has single laser so it's not the ultimate comparison. The image a bit darker than dual and the grizzle isn't as apparent because of that. I also saw Top Gun in Leonberg and resolution failure or brightness wast't more of a problem there than in the much smaller Karlsruhe IMAX. But even the Karlsruhe IMAX beats Leonberg in terms of immersion and cheer epicness. The GT architecture and geometry combined with the 1.43:1 is far superior to the oversized multiplex screen that is Leonberg. The BFI wipes the floor with Leonberg.
@@VariTimo maybe you unterstood some things wrong.. For digital, you use double Projection mainly for 3D, one per eye. The Single 4K Laser at the BFI is correctly lighting up the whole screen, or do you think IMAX Corp. would allow a too dark Result on such a presentation?.. You can use double 4K laser on 2D Movies for comfort only, which bye the way dosen't make the pixel better even they are 1:1 on top as good as possible. You can spot that very easy when a double 4K Laser projection is showing a 2D trailer before a 3D Movie, if the eyes are separated through the 3D Glasses on you Face, the Picture is more precise/sharper. You're making out a good Point, which Format (1:1.43 or 1:1.9) does really do a better Immersion, basically. Because of the Aspect Ratio of a same Widescreen Movie, it'd be just a slight difference in the Curve of the Screen, because a 1:1.9 Movie on a 1:1.43 Screen has just a smaller but different curved image (with Black Bars on top and bottom). Which confirms my Impression, that Leonberg is so huge, that they need a higher Resolution in any Way, even higher than 8K because the Size difference is tremendous. Immersiveness comes in Hand with Viewing distance, and of course you re sitting closer on an old 1:1.43 Theater. But it's a good Point from you, that you noticed that. "The BFI wipes the floor with Leonberg" well.. that's easy BS . Watching Avatar 2 on the perfect fitting Aspect Raio, an filled 1000m2 Screen to the last Corner in HDR and HFR in 3D was one the impressive Cinema Experiences of my life. Eventhough i prefer the much better Idea with the old 15/70 System in a 1:1.43 Theater, nothing beats that in my opinion by far. But nothing, really nothing can beat the suited Leonberg IMAX in combination with Movies in exact that Ratio.. Thanks for the tipp with IMAX Karlsruhe, i've put it on my list
Quick thing I’d like to point out that I didn’t mention in the video: Super Panavision 70 (2.20:1 aspect ratio) and its anamorphic sibling Ultra Panavision 70 (2.55:1 ratio) - both 65mm systems, both use the same type of film as IMAX (just run through the camera vertically rather than horizontally like IMAX) and yet they still don’t feel quite as “large” as IMAX because neither are in the 1.43:1 aspect ratio that IMAX is (Dunkirk is a good example of this as it features both Super Panavision and IMAX - again, identical film stocks and sizes, just one (Super Pana) is vertically running through the camera and one (IMAX) is horizontally running through the camera, allowing it a larger image circle). Perhaps comparing Super/Ultra Pana to IMAX would have been a more apt side-by-side than VistaVision (which is shot on 35mm film, just turned horizontally like IMAX) but when writing the video VistaVision popped into my brain mostly because of that shared aspect of both being the horizontally shot cousin of another format.
ALSO real quick point regarding sharpness/resolution/spatial fidelity - I mention in the video that IMAX’s resolute clarity only really exists up to about 6k (and is less sharp/has less fine detail resolving power than an Arri Alexa 65, also 6K), despite it being scanned in at 11K and some numbers like “18K resolution” going around pretty frequently. I just want to add that the fact that IMAX isn’t tack sharp or crystal clear is a good thing - I had the experience of watching a back to back 70mm film projection of Dunkirk followed immediately by an IMAX laser projection (was not a regular/public screening of the film), and the ultra sharpness of the high-res digital projection made it much easier to pick out flaws with the image, made the grain less pleasing, and all around made the image less painterly. The softness of film is almost always a benefit, and can actually make things look sharper and more clear by softening the less desirable aspects of large resolution imagery (you can of course soften a digital image as well, but the point I’m trying to make is that the 6K resolution limit on IMAX 70mm film is actually a benefit to its perceived sharpness, not a detractor).
I am a bit angry at the youtube algorithm right now as I have been obsessing over this very thing for years as well. And only a year after this upload does RUclips see fit to recommending it to me. And I have had the theory that "if you shoot it like IMAX, it will look like IMAX". No matter which camera is used. I am glad that I am not alone in this quest.
After seeing _Zack Snyder's Justice League,_ I guess you could say I have been spoiled. Because if you have shot an epic scale movie in IMAX 1.43:1 or in open gate 1.33:1, I don't want the image cropped to 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 when it's released to Blu-ray.
Yeah I definitely wish it was more common to see the uncropped IMAX ratio in home releases
@@PostromoPictures Like, if they re-release _Dune_ on Blu-ray with the IMAX aspect ratio restored, I'm definitely getting it.
It’s almost a cinematography class
I was instantly hooked into this video once I seen that scintillating intro. I wanted to ask some things!
1. What lenses did you use to shoot the intro that kinda give that open/zoomed out feeling?
2. Would it be possible emulating this look on an X-S20?
Hello, the lens used in the intro was a Rokinon Cine 24mm attached to the XH2s with a metabones speedbooster! As for the XS20, I've never shot on one, but given that (apart from resolution, colorspace and dynamic range) the aspects I discuss here are all physical (ie relating to the t-stop/aperture size and focal length compared to sensor size), you should be able to achieve a similar effect!
To get the Imax look I used a Kipon Baveyes Ultra 0.7x Mamiya 645 To E-Mount. I happened to have a full set of lenses. But these lenses are still cheap. This reducer is a medium format lens to full frame focal reducer. I used it on my Red VV camera. This gave the best Imax look IMO. I also have a Fuji and a focal reducer for it. However the DOF at the same F-stops are not the same at all. But overall I do like your aspect ratio analogy for the look of Imax.
If you want your 1.43:1 footage to look like IMAX you need to frame for scope or 2.20:1 using common center.
I think when you watch IMAX movies and you see the weird headroom they give, it’s because when they go into other formats, if they really frame for IMAX, they might chop off Cillian’s head or something, so they frame for other formats in mind because not everyone will see it in IMAX and they need to make money so…
Great video, sir. I look forward to what you produce with it
There's something new on the block, or at least i just started hearing about it. The method of shooting a Large format cam, like the LF or the Venice in "Portrait Mode" and then have a 2x anamorphic on that so you go from a 2:3 to a 4:3. Sure seems like an interesting approach i think. I haven't thought about the implications of Aperture size in that regard but sure seems interesting.
Yes, I've seen some experiments with those, very fascinating to me and I'm curious to see if anyone ever tries to shoot anything long form on it!
@@PostromoPictures I think landscapers from HBO is partly shot that way. On a Venice with Cooke Xtals. "Lens Addiction" on instagram posted something about that a few days ago. Looks kinda fun :)
Thank you! Finally, a sensible discussion on what makes the IMAX look. I've argued with so many people about speed boosters as well - there are actual side by side comparisons here on RUclips showing it changes the look but some still won't accept it and think it's purely down to sensor size. Anyways, there's only one thing I disagree with you on here and that is resolution - I do stills photography on 35mm and 6x7 film. I've started doing scans on 35mm stills at 42mp and still finding more detail in the images than previously thought possible - bare in mind that 8k resolution is only 33mp! So, the 6x7 frames (which are nearly identical to 70mm IMAX) have an insane amount of detail which isn't currently possible to scan. We don't have the technology to do it, but they are way over 100mp easily by estimates. That means IMAX 70mm must be in excess of 30k resolution.
Thank you! I think there’s so many variables that affect the resolution of physical formats it can vary a ton. But seeing a print of 15/70 in an IMAX theatre is really the highest res format you can see today. I do think the natural softness of celluloid does actually work in the inverse and makes the image appear sharper, much like how a painting that appears detailed will intentionally make smaller elements less detailed to fool the eye.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting this. Never really considered the aspect as a major player in creating that large feel.
Do I understand correctly that using a speedbuster on a full-frame camera together with a medium-format lens, I can achieve the same IMAX depth effect by simply cropping the edges on the left and right?
Yes, if the math works out exactly! You can see they had a similar idea here: ruclips.net/video/Vq5D0bMRsBI/видео.html
@@PostromoPictures Thank you, this is an interesting test. The depth is great, although it does not visually resemble what I see in the cinema. According to this logic, if the 1.4 Expander and S35 lens were used, the depth would disappear. And why do you think the same IMAX effect will not occur when using a 0.95, 1.2 full-frame lens on a full-frame matrix. If you also crop the image on the right and left?
@@onlinetraderucom It’s all a balancing act, so you could theoretically get what we tend to think of as a large format “look” (ultra shallow DOF) on any sensor size with a fast enough lens (to the physical limit possible) or speedbooster, and then crop the image to an appropriate aspect ratio and at that point it’s simply a matter of sacrificing as much resolution as you see fit (which can normally be pushed further than expected). As said in the video, it’s a combination of elements that people tend to associate with IMAX, not just sensor size, depth of field, aspect ratio or resolution on their own.
@@PostromoPictures Yes, it requires a non-standard view of perception. For a sense of vertical depth, you can flip the camera, framing an already vertical video on post-processing. Or, as already noted in the comments, we can use anamorphic lenses.
I guess in my own use case I want to get the most out of the frame possible so I would not want to crop. I’d like to have every pixel possible. I’m just trying to get more out of a Super 35 sensor not really trying to emulate the IMAX look if it means I should sacrifice pixels to do so.
I really appreciate the deep dive here. Also curious about the potential for certain anamorphic scopes to act like both focal reducers and “sensor wideners” for those cameras that can suit this particular aim.
Some super 35 sensors when shooting open gate and rotated sideways become of similar proportion when de-squeezed in the usual vertical axis. Scale this up from recording 1080p raw to a minimum 6K, max 8K resolution, add the proper 65mm diffused grain and you’ve got something good in theory. Just another series of tests to conduct I suppose.
Would be something I'm interested in trying out for sure! Would have to be a very sharp anamorphic but most of the modern ones are quite sharp even wide open.
I’m using a double focus setup with a 50mm FD and a 2X Sankor 16C for my Canon APSC, and so far it looks nice, but more to follow.
Hi Postromo Pictures:) I just wanted to ask where you acquired the soundtrack/music for this video. The soundtrack added so much to the end result. Really enjoyed the film emulation and direction. Thank you for your time. :)
The song at the beginning is a mix between the logo and extended versions of the IMAX sonic anthem :)
@@PostromoPictures That is so cool! Thank you for sharing! :D Would this soundtrack happen to be copyright free? It would be great to use this soundtrack in the future.
@@br0wnman713 I don't own the copyright for it (RUclips allows certain channels to use copyrighted material so long as the ad revenue goes to the copyright holders, as in this case) but the song was written by Joel Beckerman of Man Made Music!
@@PostromoPictures oh wow! This is really great to know thank you for sharing. I also wanted to say thank you for your awesome videos! Your format is really great. Been a happy subscriber for a while. Happy Saturday! Hope you have a good rest of your weekend :D
Hi, your video has convinced to getting a xh2s but I would like to know if you tried the Panasonic s5iiX with this method?
I actually had this chat with someone recently, I'll post my reply here! - I haven't used or looked into the s5ii much so I'm not quite sure where it lands with regard to dynamic range etc, but I think it would ultimately come down to what you prefer look-wise and if you've got an ecosystem for a certain sensor size already (for example, I already had a ton of super 35 and apsc lenses that I wanted to be able to use on the XH2s, which is one reason I went with a super 35 camera instead of a full frame one. The other factor is that, considering I'm able to just throw on a speedbooster and get that full frame field of view, I saw advantages in being able to use both full frame and super 35 lenses on the camera rather than being confined to just full frame lenses). Although another advantage of a full frame camera is that you can use special medium format speedboosters to turn the full frame into an even larger sensor equivalent, which is a more complicated process on super 35.
@@PostromoPictures appreciate your input. For me, I’m not tied down to the Fujifilm ecosystem yet so I’m open to any brands that would give me what I want. The s5iiX with the speed booster sounds even more interesting considering we can adapt the medium format lenses. What about the open gate ratio? You know you mentioned that the xh2s has the closest ratio to the 1.43:1 , do you know if the open gate on the s5iix will provide better “ratios”?
@@stranstudio the open gate ratio on the s5iix is the same as the XH2s at 1.5:1 :)
@@PostromoPictures haha of course. I’ll do a little research to see which will fit me better. I really appreciate your time. Thanks again :)
There are a few things. Real quick:
Yedlin used 5219 for the Resolution Demo, which is the highest grain film of the Vision3 family. 5219 is comparable to the Alexa in special resolution. That‘s why the Alexa 65 and the IMAX footage he used are so close to each other. Contact printed 5203, 5207, or 5213 are be considerably higher resolution than scanned 5219.
Your camera like the Alexa uses a Bayer color filter to get a color image. So the XH2-S only comes out to about 4.3K of nominal resolution. And just like with the trash Ursa 12K nominal pixel count is pretty much meaningless.
The 50mm T2 and 80mm T2 lenses Nolan has for his IMAX movies are the most shallow depth of field of any motion picture capture medium. An equivalent depth of field would be achieved with a 25mm T1 and 40mm T1 which as far as I know do not exist as cinema lenses and would very like not compare sharpens wise. And while your Rokkor has the light gathering ability of an f1 lens with the speed booster, it still has the depth of field of a full frame lens at f1.5. Which is very much an equivalent to what we see in many IMAX shots since Hoyte Van Hoytema often lights night scenes to a T2.8 for IMAX. So while not achieving the maximum of what is possible, shallow depth of field wise with IMAX at the 25mm equivalent focal length (see the tunnel chase in TDKR) it comes pretty close to the general look. At least as long as the XH2-as’ noise doesn’t interfere with the fine grain that IMAX film would have. I don’t think it would hold up against an IMAX film projection on an actual IMAX screen though.
Lastly, Dehancer is a subpar film emulation and I keep waiting for Spectra Film to come out instead of using it.
Yes, I tend to agree, though I think it’s also important to note that most general audiences aren’t going to notice a perceivable difference between 2K and 4K, let alone 8K, 12K and beyond. Also by no means am I trying to say the XH2S is comparable spec wise to an IMAX 70mm camera, just that there are ways to recreate what we associate with the IMAX “look” on a low budget (I’d shoot on real IMAX 15/70 if I could, trust me)! It’s also why I think it’s worth noting that numerical resolution =/= perceived resolution - To general audiences, a high contrast 2K image will likely appear sharper than a flatter, lower contrast 4K (or even 8K) image.
I’ve seen 2K projections on IMAX screens which hold as much punch as 4K laser or even 70mm film projections, which again is why I try to stress it’s not one aspect that is THE key to IMAX, rather many elements working in unison to immerse an audience. Some of those elements have more weight, yes, and some can be more easily recreated at a low budget level than others, but ultimately I’m willing to bet 99% of IMAX audiences would be entirely unaware of any technical difference between IMAX and standard theatre screens beyond simply screen size alone. Not that they don’t subconsciously notice these things, but rather that they’re not actively identifying and thinking about them.
@@PostromoPictures I agree also that you’re pretty successful with getting an IMAX look across. And I am very much on the fuck resolution side in this day and age. I’ve seen Avatar 2 on a GT IMAX screen with dual laser in HFR 3D meaning it was projected at 2K and it looked perfectly ok. Even back in 2015 I saw Rogue Nation at the massive BFI IMAX in London sitting really close to the screen. And that was projected at 2K using dual Xenon and I still had a blast with the movie.
That being said and again, I agree that resolution is the least important part of the image pipeline nowadays, even Steve Yedlin says that it plays a more important roll in IMAX. I vividly remember seeing the 70mm IMAX print of Dunkirk at the BFI IMAX sitting a bit closer to the screen and being blown away by how far out in the distance I was able to make out individual leafs of grass. The only other time I felt this sense of hype real detail was watching a 70mm 5-perf print of Tenet on a huge second gen Cinerama screen. And this is not perceived sharpness, this is actually seeing more detail because you’re setting close to a very huge screen. So while 2K can look fine on a GT IMAX screen and deliver an enjoyable movie experience and dual laser can look great. This effect of total visual immersion was something I’ve only experienced on film. The detail was something I’ve noticed on my second screenings of these movies btw. Part of that I think is that digital projection technology doesn’t hold up to the capture mediums. Dual laser IMAX is great and all but I have yet to see a laser projection system that doesn’t have a specular grizzle, that has a profund effect on resolution. Seeing Nope in dual laser GT was no where near the same amount of spacial fidelity as Dunkirk in 70mm IMAX. When you’re watching something like an IMAX print of Dunkirk that was contact printed directly from the camera negative, the only factor of degradation will be the print stock. Which might add an almost imperceptible about of very fine grain. Look at Dune or The Batman. These were filmed out, onto intermediate stock and then printed onto 2383 in 35mm and scanned to make the digital master. And there is practically no grain from that in the image (really apparent grain in those movies comes from Greig Fraser shooting at higher ASAs). IMAX and large format screens can actually benefit from higher resolution capture and projection.
But yeah. The rest is just as important. It’s not just how fast these IMAX lenses are but also that they are the most gorgeous medium format still lenses ever created. These Zeiss Planar designs are legendary and are a huge part or why these images look so real, even when stoped down a lot. Then there is the screen shape and theater geometry, sound system, and off course the fact that these movies are shot and in Nolan’s case finished on film. Even Steve Yedlin’s emulation just looks like scanned negative graded to have print like colors. An actual print is still a magical experience. I’m sure it can be replicated somewhat in VFX, I think Spectra will gave tools for that. But for now, I am super excited to see photochemical 70mm black and white IMAX in July!
@@VariTimo Interesting Discussion.. To light up only one part of it, i saw Interstellar 15/70 a few days ago, and the Trailer Show before the Film showed the new Trailer digit. IMAX Version of the Guardians of G. Movie on the 4k LASER GT Projector. I've had the ultmate Comparision. I can understand that for the Masses, this Laser 4K Version Quality is quite Ok. As you say, you can spot the litte grizzle but it's definitly not a bad Quality (We are talking about the pinnacle of digital Projetion on earth, IMAX 4K Laser).
But when you see some of the 15/70 Scenes, it undoubtedly show who's the boss in the house. It's razor sharp on the whole massive BFI Screen, NO VISABLE GRAIN - i was surprised again and again, you're blown away by this endless resolution, rich colour and unreached Image. It's like a massive Linhof large format still photography, but moving. To this day, no digital camera, and importantly no projection system can recreate this input / output 15/70 Viewing-Experience, by far. Of course if youger generations never experienced 15/70mm, they will take that 4K Laser system. i'm absolute sure by now, even an native 8K DLP Laser System do not beat a 15/70, it would come close but would stay below that.
And another thing for you, on the 44m Meter wide, largest (IMAX) Screen on Earth, the IMAX Leonberg, the 4K Laser Sytem shows clearly it's limits. Think about the difference on 26m (BFI) and 44m, same 4K Resolution. I was there for Avatar 2, which was an awesome Experience! It's just a different Thing, the 15/70 Projetions (and Look) are just in another World. On these massive Screens, trust me, you will see that Resolution matters. on these "20m" Cinemascope Superscreens, 4K is really a good Deal. In my words, it's a shame that Cinema Technologies are one of the worst transportet Informations ever.. that already let to the Death of some great technologies. Let's fight and comuniacte to remain the best of all, the 15/70mm Format
@@mixdown78 I know. I also just saw Interstellar at the BFI too. The BFI only has single laser so it's not the ultimate comparison. The image a bit darker than dual and the grizzle isn't as apparent because of that.
I also saw Top Gun in Leonberg and resolution failure or brightness wast't more of a problem there than in the much smaller Karlsruhe IMAX. But even the Karlsruhe IMAX beats Leonberg in terms of immersion and cheer epicness. The GT architecture and geometry combined with the 1.43:1 is far superior to the oversized multiplex screen that is Leonberg. The BFI wipes the floor with Leonberg.
@@VariTimo maybe you unterstood some things wrong.. For digital, you use double Projection mainly for 3D, one per eye. The Single 4K Laser at the BFI is correctly lighting up the whole screen, or do you think IMAX Corp. would allow a too dark Result on such a presentation?.. You can use double 4K laser on 2D Movies for comfort only, which bye the way dosen't make the pixel better even they are 1:1 on top as good as possible. You can spot that very easy when a double 4K Laser projection is showing a 2D trailer before a 3D Movie, if the eyes are separated through the 3D Glasses on you Face, the Picture is more precise/sharper.
You're making out a good Point, which Format (1:1.43 or 1:1.9) does really do a better Immersion, basically. Because of the Aspect Ratio of a same Widescreen Movie, it'd be just a slight difference in the Curve of the Screen, because a 1:1.9 Movie on a 1:1.43 Screen has just a smaller but different curved image (with Black Bars on top and bottom). Which confirms my Impression, that Leonberg is so huge, that they need a higher Resolution in any Way, even higher than 8K because the Size difference is tremendous. Immersiveness comes in Hand with Viewing distance, and of course you re sitting closer on an old 1:1.43 Theater. But it's a good Point from you, that you noticed that.
"The BFI wipes the floor with Leonberg" well.. that's easy BS . Watching Avatar 2 on the perfect fitting Aspect Raio, an filled 1000m2 Screen to the last Corner in HDR and HFR in 3D was one the impressive Cinema Experiences of my life. Eventhough i prefer the much better Idea with the old 15/70 System in a 1:1.43 Theater, nothing beats that in my opinion by far. But nothing, really nothing can beat the suited Leonberg IMAX in combination with Movies in exact that Ratio..
Thanks for the tipp with IMAX Karlsruhe, i've put it on my list
liked