this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
1876 points (98.2% liked)
pics
19546 readers
591 users here now
Rules:
1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer
2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.
3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.
4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.
5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.
Photo of the Week Rule(s):
1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.
2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Serious question, does it actually make that much of a difference? It's it worth me driving 300 minutes to see?
I'm no old-school cinephile, but I've listened to enough of them to understand that if you're really into the nitty gritty details and love soaking in every corner of a filmed image, there is no substitute for a large print screening. But YMMV.
If you are a film student. Yes. For most folks 5 hours is a lot of driving. Film is the way that Christopher Nolan intended but the digital versions exist just so that most people can experience it. Don't feel like you missed out if it's just too much driving. The story is what is key. Not the projection technology.
I've never actually seen anything in 70mm IMAX, so idk! But I love the vibe of analog film and the way it looks, so to experience Nolan in the way he intended it at essentially 16k resolution is likely going to be incredible. Five hours is quite a lot though, especially to then watch a three hour movie. Maybe if you made a weekend out of it and stayed at a hotel or camped somewhere? I'm lucky that the closest one to me is only a 45 minute drive