@[email protected] to [email protected] • 1 year agoThe 11-mile long, 600 lbs IMAX print of ‘OPPENHEIMER’i.imgur.comimagemessage-square336fedilinkarrow-up11.91Karrow-down135
arrow-up11.87Karrow-down1imageThe 11-mile long, 600 lbs IMAX print of ‘OPPENHEIMER’i.imgur.com@[email protected] to [email protected] • 1 year agomessage-square336fedilink
minus-square@Jefflixlink2•1 year agoWell 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.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink2•1 year agoIf you can’t tell the difference on the screen it should make no damn odds how the image was stored.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•1 year agoThere would be no reason to be any difference if a digital system were adequately engineered to replace that resolution of print.
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.
Shun?
Lol I guess I meant shone. Anyways, with light shining through
If you can’t tell the difference on the screen it should make no damn odds how the image was stored.
deleted by creator
There would be no reason to be any difference if a digital system were adequately engineered to replace that resolution of print.