Why the fuck can't normal theaters simply display the top image just like IMAX but with black borders on the sides? I often watch old 4:3 movies at my local kinoplex and it looks just fine
>>220971521>imax is just the old 4:3 standard we had 50 years ago
>>220972052I wonder what's the next old thing they'll resell as revolutionary
>>220972052IMAX 15/70 has been around since the 60s and was always 1.33:1.
>>220972052back in my day we'd just sit closer to the screen.
>>220971521Why don't they just go back to regular 35mm film for every release and stop this IMAX gimmick
>>220973212Well almost no one wants to shoot on film for money or practicality reasons
>>220973212>back to regular 35mm film for every releasebecause 35mm film distribution is super expensive, a thousand times more expensive than digital projections
>>220973228a lot of mainstream movies are still shot on film just projected digitally
>>220973324And yet the budgets in the digital era are untenable and without precedent, while movies look like shit. And then you see some arthouse film from bumfuckistan shot in analog whose entire production was the cost of a Subway sandwich and you start wondering things.
>>220973357Distribution is not part of the film budget anon.
>>220973228even the ones that shoot on film, like the latest JW, just look like digitalthey have lost it
>>220973581They run the same cleaning algorithms that Fincher uses for his restorations, thus ruining the point of using film other than saying "I shot on film therefore I'm a serious filmmaker!"
>>220973324I watched Testament of Ann Lee projected on film at my local cinema here in Australia a couple months ago, and that movie would have had a tiny marketing budget. Big blockbusters could still easily do it if they wanted to. The producers would probably just rather pocket that couple extra million for themselves.
>>220973212because this isn't india, pradeep subhumaniam
Because you can charge people more money if you pretend it doesn't work that way.
