Only a handful of theaters do film IMAX anymore. A lot of IMAX locations are just 4k DCP (Digital Cinema Package)
Most theaters in the world are digital projectors with a max resolution of 1998x1080 or 2048x858

Part of the reason these factors still exist is cost. A poorly maintained film projector with a lousy film print can ruin a movie going experience. Hollywood would sometimes release so very shitty prints. The digital projectors are much easier to maintain so the experience is often more ideal for the average movie goer.

Having said that, if a theater takes good care of their film projectors and they have a well made and well kept print, the experience can be amazing.

[–] remer@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn’t realize imax was still film. I figured it went digital with everything else.

[–] sci@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

70mm film to be exact

[–] chat_mots@jlai.lu 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wait, they're still printing movies O_o
I thought it was only stored on computer nowadays. This is sick !

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

No no, that is the hard drive!

[–] Amilo159@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That will fit nicely in my 32gb micro sdxc the size of a fingernail.

[–] maeries@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually it won't. A movie on a 4k blu ray is around 80gb without additional compression. And Oppenheimer is shot on 70mm which is more like 8k resolution. Still would fit on a micro SD of course

[–] DominicHillsun@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's way bigger than that. Usually cinemas receive movies in multiple terabyte hard drives. Thats because they are using JPEG2000 standard (it varies, but it is close to lossless) and a movie can take up anywhere from 500GB to 2TB (highly dependent on resolution, it can go above 2TB). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000?wprov=sfla1

[–] maeries@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

True. I was assuming h265 or something similar

[–] ren@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Me: Watching it on my phone Nolan: 🫨

[–] maeries@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

As long as you don't complain about the sound being hard to understand then

[–] jaum22@lemmy.eco.br 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

600 lbs ~ 272 kg

[–] Pinklink@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

272 kg ~ 43 stone

[–] CurlyMoustache@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How many pebbles?

[–] smokedclover@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

86 in the winter, 87 daylight savings time

[–] macintosh@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This obsession with the length and weight of the film is such a bizarre marketing strategy.

[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ya this feels really astroturfy. Are they bragging that the movie is really long?

[–] Sharkwellington@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Movies are getting really long and I don't know if I like it. I watched Across the Spider-verse recently which was I think 2.5 hours. To be fair it was a fantastic 2.5 hours, but every other movie in the theater was 2 hours plus and one was over 200 minutes long. Half of them were animated, which are usually on the short side and for good reason, because there's never any real meat to the story (Spider-verse again being the exception). Sometimes you just want a relaxed 1 hour 20 minute story; not every film has to be this gigantic grand experience.

[–] ProfezzorDarke@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Do you know "The Ten Commandments" or "Ben Hur"? Or perhaps such monumental comedy productions as "The Hallelujah Trail"? It's always been a thing