The Odyssey – DCP/Format Distribution by Territory vice

[Shibu Paul]

Hello All,

According to the information currently available online regarding Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey, the film is expected to be released in multiple presentation formats, including IMAX 70mm, IMAX Digital (1.90:1), 70mm, standard DCP, Dolby Vision, and other Premium Large Format (PLF) versions. The official promotional material also highlights several aspect-ratio versions for different exhibition systems.

However, it is still unclear whether all these versions will be distributed to every country. Typically, format availability depends on the distributor, studio booking strategy, local certification, and the technical capabilities of each territory and cinema chain.

Has anyone received any official notification from stufios:

[Steve Guttag]

I like how they assign a resolution to the film formats! Haven't we been over that before? I wonder how they got those numbers, even for estimated equivalences? 5/70 is about 8K? 4/35 is about 6K? Does that take into the account the entire printing process from reduction printing to an IN through release printing? Or...just maybe...its marketing wanting to steer you to the FILM formats. Note, IMAX digital is using 1.43 AND 1.9 where as the other, lesser digitals, get 1.85 OR 2.39

[Marcel Birgelen]

This isn't an official release by a studio but some fan-made thing. Defining an exact resolution for any type of film stock has been proven difficult over the years... So how they got those numbers is anybodies guess. Although, for what it's worth, the "industry consensus" seems to be that 35mm roughly equals to a practical resolution of "4K", although it's marketed as "6K" here. While it's apparently presented in scope only, scope itself doesn't add resolution to the print medium...

Note, IMAX digital is using 1.43 AND 1.9 where as the other, lesser digitals, get 1.85 OR 2.39

Only the digitally converted "GT" screens will get 1.43 digital Laser projection, most of the modern installs, laser or not, have been 1.9 installs.

This movie was apparently entirely shot on 15/65, so hope, there will be, for once, no aspect ratio transitions?

[Marco Giustini]

Commercial cinemas 35mm = 6K!

More 0.6K in the real world. And I think it's a fair number, I believe some tests back then proved an actual resolution of 1K.

[Steve Guttag]

The approximation of 4K resolution of 35mm film was based on the 1.85:1 ratio. So, a Scope format is using more film area than that in the vertical dimension.

i've seen demonstrations of 35mm film going through the various stages where they shot a target and projected the negative, then the resulting inter-positive (or EK print), then the resulting internegative and finally the release print and they were shown back-to-back-to-back through the same projector. Onen could, indeed watch the degradation.

What I have yet to see is a conversion of 35PA to digital and then projected where the line pairs are any good.

[Marcel Birgelen]

The approximation of 4K resolution of 35mm film was based on the 1.85:1 ratio. So, a Scope format is using more film area than that in the vertical dimension..

It's about 16% more surface area on film, if my math is somewhat sound. While that's more surface area, it doesn't fill the gap between 4K and 6K.

Then again, it's all an approximation. Film is nowadays often scanned at 6K. There seems to be a consensus that scanning anything beyond 6K primarily resolves film grain and doesn't add any more relevant detail, so 6K is the "safe bet" and less bulky than 8K.

Maybe the wrong forum, but I've noticed that Kinepolis Brussels has apparently revived their IMAX film projector and will be showing the Odyssey in15/70 IMAX. They reopened the place almost 10 years ago as a laser-only venue, I still remember when my visit back then was brutally interrupted by a not so friendly "toilet lady". It will be the first time in more than 20 years that this venue will be showing film and only the second theater on mainland Europe to do so...

[Chris Haller]

I like how they assign a resolution to the film formats! Haven't we been over that before? I wonder how they got those numbers, even for estimated equivalences? 5/70 is about 8K? 4/35 is about 6K? Does that take into the account the entire printing process from reduction printing to an IN through release printing? Or...just maybe...its marketing wanting to steer you to the FILM formats. Note, IMAX digital is using 1.43 AND 1.9 where as the other, lesser digitals, get 1.85 OR 2.39

I wouldn't pay much mind to that image. It was made by a fan on twitter, and isn't official marketing material. All I know is that they're marketing the film on the aspect ratio on their website. Most of the film fans on those kinds of sites kinda just ran with the old "IMAX is 16/12K" and never really dug more into the process.

[Jim Cassedy]

It's sometimes confusing enough lately to keep track of all these assorted aspect ratios,
but now there are also so many 'boutique' DCP formats (DolbyVision, Screen-X, 4DX,
etc) to deal with. We'll be getting the BARCO HDR version, at my venue, although for
the first week or so I think we will mostly be running 5/70 shows.

[Marcel Birgelen]

When they came up with the term single inventory, they apparently meant a single inventory for each and every configuration out there. Can't wait for DCP-freestyle, where you can customize and download your very own DCP, tailored specially for your setup!

I'd introduce it together with VERTIMAX, the world's first common width, vertically oriented cinema screen.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I've asked AI to create a VERTIMAX impression. I guess what we got is more like the Atmos version of VERTIMAX... multi-screen and ULTRA-high, like the Ultra Panavision of vertical screens...

vertimax.png

[Steve Guttag]

It's about 16% more surface area on film, if my math is somewhat sound. While that's more surface area, it doesn't fill the gap between 4K and 6K.

Please show your work.

Scope: .825x.690 = .569 in²
Flat: .446x.825 = .368 in²

It is approximately 55% more area. If 4K is ≈ 35mm 1.85, then, applying a 55% increase could be rationalized into a 6K nominal resolution equivalence (It isn't since you move up in resolution at the rate of 4x per doubling (twice in each direction). 70mm is roughly double 35mm flat in height and it is a bit more than double in width . So, 5/70, if you buy into 4K is nominally 1.85 35mm...then 5/70 is, at least 9K,

The case for 35mm scope is that it is no wider, on film than 35mm flat. It is only 55% taller. So, 5K is closer (using whole numbers). if, if, if, if.

But since you say this is fan generated it is of no consequence. The film is shot, processed, cut in IMAX 15/70. That is the intended format. If well done, the 5/70 prints should be the next best looking and are "blow down" versions of the 15/70 source with cropping. Depending on the source negative, the 35mm Scope prints should look the best, next as they should have more than 4K equivalent resolution...then all of the digital formats, in order...if, if, if, if (meaning everything works out perfect in the processing and projecting).

[Stefan Scholz]

Commercial cinemas 35mm = 6K!

More 0.6K in the real world. And I think it's a fair number, I believe some tests back then proved an actual resolution of 1K.

32 to 40 lines per mm with better projection lenses in the regions outside the center. In center 60 to 70.
With bimetallic acting film stock, the projected image is 2/3 of the lighted time out of the depth of field range of the normally used f 1.8 projection lens.

Even a positive average of 50 lines per mm, or roughly 90 to 100 pixel equivalence, is not exceeding 2 k in theory.
That does not take the printed resolution in account. This can even be lower, and tose 3000 ft per minute mass prints of the 2000 years were more like 50 px horizontal.
I am tired of that crap. Any modern digital "Ultra High Contrast" 4k projection exceeds film projection, in nearly all parameters.
Film looks different to the vision mechanism, though. And can treat you really well. No doubt about that fact.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Please show your work.

No.
(I threw that away as not to be embarrassed.)
The 16 somewhat percentage felt a bit low, but I winged it anyway.

Scope: .825x.690 = .569 in²
Flat: .446x.825 = .368 in²

It is approximately 55% more area. If 4K is ≈ 35mm 1.85, then, applying a 55% increase could be rationalized into a 6K nominal resolution equivalence (It isn't since you move up in resolution at the rate of 4x per doubling (twice in each direction). 70mm is roughly double 35mm flat in height and it is a bit more than double in width . So, 5/70, if you buy into 4K is nominally 1.85 35mm...then 5/70 is, at least 9K,

The case for 35mm scope is that it is no wider, on film than 35mm flat. It is only 55% taller. So, 5K is closer (using whole numbers). if, if, if, if.

But since you say this is fan generated it is of no consequence. The film is shot, processed, cut in IMAX 15/70. That is the intended format. If well done, the 5/70 prints should be the next best looking and are "blow down" versions of the 15/70 source with cropping. Depending on the source negative, the 35mm Scope prints should look the best, next as they should have more than 4K equivalent resolution...then all of the digital formats, in order...if, if, if, if (meaning everything works out perfect in the processing and projecting).

Go away with your dreadful inches, the format is called 35 MILLIMETER for a reason.

I think I looked at the wrong numbers. But here is a new attempt, this time with numbers from my own charts, which I had to digg up, because the Internets is really full of crap:

Flat frame on film: 20.9 mm x 11.3 mm = 236,17 mm2
Scope frame on film: 20.9 mm x 17.5 mm = 365,75 mm2

So, the difference is about 129,58 mm2

129,58 / 236,17 * 100 = 54,86 or about 55%

Still not 6K and when 35mm frames are scanned, they're usually scanned full-frame, so that 4K is pretty much a consensus for the "full frame", depending on who you ask and what phase the moon is in. And because this consensus is more like a belief than anything else, many labs are nowadays scanning at 6K, full frame...

Below is what the Cintel Scanner from Black Magic Design is able to resolve. This doesn't mean there isn't potentially more information in the frame, though:

3840 x 2880 - Super 35
3390 x 2465 - Standard 35
3390 x 2865 - Anamorphic 35
1903 x 1143 - Super 16
1581 x 1154 - Standard 16
892 x 638 - Super 8
752 x 567 - Standard 8

I've taken the numbers from here and if you compare "Standard 35" with "Anamorphic 35" it's about 16%. Obviously, assuming Standard 35 would be 1.85 FLAT was a dangerous assumption.

PS: In an earlier version, I stumbled over my own scribbling. Math is hard, apparently. :P

[Steve Guttag]

Do you not understand that film is always measured in width in metric but length in imperial? That is why, even with digital, they shoot "footage."

[Marcel Birgelen]

Do you not understand that film is always measured in width in metric but length in imperial? That is why, even with digital, they shoot "footage."

So the correct measurement entity for the surface area of a film is millifeet?