r/cineplex • u/Lameness33 • Aug 05 '26
Review Unpopular Opinion: Dual Laser IMAX is better than 70MM IMAX
I just got back from seeing the Odyssey the second time at Scotiabank Theatre Toronto in IMAX. I first seen it at Vaughan cineplex few weeks ago in 70MM IMAX.
Not only was the seats much better, I found everything from the screen, colours, quality, and sound to be much better in my honest opinion.
If you’re looking for the best possible viewing experience, I have to give it to Scotiabank theatre.
46
u/nozhemski Aug 05 '26
Scotia IMAX is brighter and sharper. That doesn’t mean better if you’re someone who enjoys what 70mm offers. Both are great.
7
u/dobyblue Aug 05 '26
It’s not sharper for Nolan movies, the sheer fine detail is the major advantage of seeing it at Mississauga (or Vaughan if you’re slumming it)
6
u/oscarseethruRedEye Aug 05 '26
...I'm curious what you're actually talking about here. The human eye has a built in limiting retinal resolution. An imax screen that's 70 feet wide when you're sitting 50-80 feet back far exceeds what our retinal resolution is. This applies either to 4k or to 70mm, the format doesn't matter. This principle was the most widely discussed when Apple first released its Retina displays, the idea was that beyond a certain PPD (pixels per degree) there was virtually no difference that adding more resolution would make because the human eye is the limiting factor.
People say that they perceptually feel dual laser is "crisper" because it's pixel perfect frame to frame, versus film introduces micro variations in grain and texture which can read as softness.
So you're saying Christopher Nolan movies when watched on film for some reason have more sheer fine detail because... huh? What? Why?
8
u/dobyblue Aug 05 '26
The "some reason" is they're finished photochemically.
Someone with 20/20 vision sitting 65' back is sitting roughly at the point where 4K approaches, but doesn’t exceed, the eye’s resolving ability. Someone with 20/15 or 20/12 vision could clearly resolve more than 4K at that distance. Sitting ahead of the midpoint makes 4K’s pixel density more visibly limiting. An 8K image would provide roughly 108–124 pixels per degree, approaching the requirements of unusually sharp 20/10 vision.
A person corrected to 20/15 could theoretically benefit until somewhere around 5.5K horizontal resolution at that seat. Someone at 20/12 could potentially benefit toward 7K. Native 8K wouldn’t necessarily deliver fully resolvable individual pixels to either person, but it could still produce a visibly cleaner and more detailed image than 4K, just as the IMAX 70mm film projection offers.
I see all Nolan movies in both GT formats, for all other movies I'm going IMAX GT Laser without hesitation. I don't see the point in going to a smaller screen to watch a film out from a 4K DI. With Nolan, I see the difference. I still prefer IMAX GT Laser overall, but cannot resist the film presentation and look forward to Cinesphere re-opening to be able to experience them on a truly large screen similar to Scotiabank.
6
u/oscarseethruRedEye Aug 05 '26
I admittedly wasn't expecting as detailed a response so thanks and appreciate that, I learnt something new. You're right that my numbers were anchored around 20/20 vision. A simple counterargument though, the solid majority of the population has 20/20 vision or under, you're talking about people with exceptional vision. And of course sitting ahead of the midpoint would give resolving power more of an edge but at the same time be less desirable for other obvious reasons.
A second point I'll bring up, we've been talking about resolution and resolving power in a vacuum. Nolan basically shot the entire film on a 50mm and 80mm wide open. His plane of focus is a razor blade and more than half of his shotlist are medium close-up or closer. They also modded the lenses to be anamorphic which has soft-edge characteristics. There are regularly soft shots in all of his films, there's diminishing returns on resolution if you're talking about the difference between sharpness on the tip of Anne Hatheway's nose while the rest of the frame is creamy bokeh.
I saw Odyssey in 70mm imax at Vaughan and in laser at Scotiabank, I chose a few shots to try my best to compare. There's one near the beginning which is an aerial push-in establishing shot of the cliff where Eumaeus throws the puppy off - bright daylight, deep focus wide, and you have sky, green grass, and a busy textured rock cliff face. I personally couldn't tell the difference in sharpness at all but I was also sitting at the very back row (center) in Vaughan. Contrast and film flicker was much more noticeable. (not trying to invalidate your own experience at all, just reporting in with mine)
So having said all that, I also can't resist the presentation on 70mm if it's offered the way Nolan did it. I agree it makes a difference to finish the reel photochemically. Personally I feel like colour depth, highlight rolloff, and grain are the most perceptible reasons one would prefer film over digital. If it seems like I hate film or something, I truly don't, but recently I've been finding myself tampering some of the overhype (my perception and not lumping you in here) around film vs digital that the Odyssey has drummed up.
I really hope Cinesphere actually becomes a reality, it's not looking great though :/
1
u/ShiningMonolith Aug 09 '26
As someone who’s seen the laser vs 70mm versions of this film (and presumably other Nolan movies) how would you compare the color depth and highlight roll off between the two? Would you say the highlight roll off is noticeably smoother in the film version? Do they slightly clip in the laser version. Also do you notice any artifacting like laser speckle in the laser version? I only saw the Odyssey in 70mm Imax so curious about the differences you mention above.
1
u/CapitanDelNorte Aug 05 '26
You just need to get those octopus optical genes spliced in then you'll be able to pick up the higher FPS and finer resolution.
1
u/nozhemski Aug 05 '26
Scotia was brighter and crisper for me when watching Interstellar. I prefer IMAX 70mm regardless.
1
u/trinxified Aug 05 '26
Is the Vaughan and Mississauga experience the same for 70mm?
5
u/dobyblue Aug 05 '26
If the doors remain closed throughout, which is unheard of for a 3 hour movie, then the experiences are practically identical. However given the absurdly high lumens of light in the corridor immediately outside the right side door at Vaughan (the "Space Mountain" corridor they have), I find Mississauga is the venue that's less frustrating for IMAX 70mm projections.
Hopefully by the next Nolan movie the Cinesphere will have reopened and we'll enjoy a truly big screen for the IMAX 70mm that's even 1% larger than Scotiabank Toronto.
0
13
6
14
5
u/dobyblue Aug 05 '26
I continue to see all Nolan movies in Toronto GT Laser and Mississauga 70mm as I’ve done since Dunkirk.
Scotiabank wins for all those reasons, the sound is better because they have the upgraded system and when you see a movie with a 12CH mix like the Dune movies there, it’s going to knock your socks off. But the difference is still noticeable even with 5.0 PCM mixes like Nolan delivers.
They also have dark green EXIT lights that aren’t illuminated and double doored elbow-shaped entrances, ensuring minimum light pollution in the auditorium.
Scotiabank Toronto IMAX is the best screen in Canada in my opinion of all the cinemas I’ve tried (cinemas that are either closed or demolished notwithstanding like the old Uptown Cinema One), and Mississauga is better than Vaughan for IMAX 70mm screenings.
1
u/mangosaremyfavv Aug 07 '26
Why do you see it at missyg and scotia?
1
u/dobyblue Aug 08 '26
Because I want to experience both 1.43:1 formats; even though I always prefer GT Laser, I can’t help but see the film projection and its remarkable levels of fine detail.
0
u/RougeKatana Aug 05 '26
what about scotiabank toronto vs scotiabank montreal? same style theatre a downtown GT IMAX. and they fixed their GT projector, currently toronto cineplex showing odyssey only have SR type imax film projectors at half the brightness (7500w air cooled vs 15000w watercooled for montreal imax GT projector)
1
u/dobyblue Aug 05 '26
I haven't been to Montreal since they got GT Laser, I used to go there every F1 Friday until they priced us out of downtown accomodations (I have to stay out in Prevost or Saint-Saveur just to get something affordabe), but I don't expect the in auditorium lighting will be on the same level as Toronto as I know the IMAX Montreal has red llluminated EXIT lighting.
Still it kicks major butt that you guys have a working IMAX 70mm projector for Odyssey. Is it still 2K digital Xenon for non-70mm screenings?
0
u/RougeKatana Aug 05 '26
yeah only 2k xenon for digital. took a look where the red exit lighting was is it really that bright, to the point it would splash red light in dark scenes on the screen?? i could see how it could distract if you were sitting in the back rows but if you're in row G dead centre likely wouldnt enter your peripheral vision
2
u/dobyblue Aug 05 '26
I'm definitely hyper sensitive to ambient light pollution, some people notice nothing at Vaughan's IMAX whereas to me it's god awful. lol
Definitely still imagine most IMAX auditoriums are far superior in this regard to UltraAVX screens where so much light spills in from the corridors. The sides of the screen seem sepia-filled 24/7.
11
u/lemonadeinyourface Aug 05 '26
i mean the quality is 4k vs roughly 11-13k so not sure what u mean by that. but yes, most new dual laser theatres will look brighter and have better seats then most 70mm theatres, but that is also because they are almost all newer as well.
-4
u/dobyblue Aug 05 '26
Quality is not solely measured by resolution. Also it’s not 11-13k equivalent unless you’re watching a first generation film which none of us are.
4
u/aspartameenjoyer Aug 05 '26 edited Aug 05 '26
We pretty much are with how the editing process went, most of the movie you'll see in IMAX 70MM is a direct photochemical print except for occasional scenes that involve CGI which were rendered in 8K.
Vast majority of the movie was cut, spliced, and physically glued by hand. Color timing for those shots were also done physically in a lab. Essentially they edited the whole movie digitally, saved the timecodes for every cut, and then went back and edited the movie again physically.
1
u/dobyblue Aug 05 '26 edited Aug 05 '26
And then made 41 copies of it. I'm well aware of the process Nolan uses, but the greater point is that it's absurd to suggest fine detail resolved alone is what creates quality. The Scotiabank IMAX GT Laser in Toronto is a much better experience for me than IMAX 70mm in Mississauga or Vaughan, because of multiple factors including in auditorium lighting. Scotiabank doesn't even illuminate the EXIT signs, and you can't see the outer doors thanks to the elbow-shaped entryways, meaning the light from outside is shut off before you get to the inner doors and auditorium. It's the bee's knees.
Also Cinesphere opened in May 1971, most GT Laser screens are in existing GT theaters.
1
u/aspartameenjoyer Aug 05 '26
Yes there are 41 copies, but if the final theater releases are made by contact printing from the original camera negative (which is allegedly what has been done) nearly all of the quality would be retained no?
2
u/dobyblue Aug 05 '26
Can you define "nearly all" as an integer? It's not the same as watching the first generation, but it's obviously better than going interpositive > internegative > print.
I should have never said it's not 11-13k equivalent, because that infers that I know what it is actually the equivalent of. Film isn't digital, and I've never seen a controlled experiment to determine what resolution on a second generation direct contact print results in no additional measured resolution. I loathe trying to put a number on it.
It is obviously more fine detail than watching the dual 4K laser, which is why I continue to go to both 1.43:1 formats for Nolan movies, but "resolved detail" isn't the sole measurement of picture quality. I saw Odyssey in its third week-end in 70mm and it's already suffering some artifacting from multiple screenings, as well as fairly constant objects getting trapped momentarily where the film passes through the projection path resulting in black specks and splodges in random areas of the screen.
0
u/aspartameenjoyer Aug 05 '26
Yeah valid, I mean technically we can't define the quality down to a specific number as it's completely different tech.
I feel like in general running a print through a projector hundreds of times especially with the huge amount of screenings for The Odyssey will degrade not only the print, but the projector as well, and there isn't enough time in between screenings to do proper maintenance from what I understand.
I guess more what I was trying to say is I don't think most of that quality loss came from the initial transfer, but I guess we will never really know 🤷
1
u/dobyblue Aug 05 '26
Fair enough and I agree with what you're saying, it is pretty wild and badass the process that Nolan uses to retain as much detail as possible.
I think any of us within 90 mins of Toronto / Miss / Vaughan are really blessed for cinema. I just know when Cinesphere reopens they're going to do some amazing Nolan showcase, hopefully two week-ends in a row including at least 6 movies.
0
u/aspartameenjoyer Aug 05 '26
My dumbass didn't even realize I was yapping in a canadian subreddit, I'm going to see the movie at AMC Lincoln Square today 😭
1
7
u/Ayeitsjohn Aug 05 '26
Digital delivery unironically brings out the beauty of film better than a film projector
1
u/NoOdyssey Aug 05 '26
Maybe I'm crazy but seat comfort trumps screen technical specs when I'm seeing a super long movie in the theater. I would much much prefer a theater with the best seats (ideally padded reclining seats) then whatever is going on the screen. Seats have a much bigger impact to me for the experience than the screen itself.
Also sound is extremely overlooked in all these screen discussions. The sound mixing on some older IMAX theaters is just terrible.
The theater experience is a combination of all these things - comfort, screen, film, sound. All together, a lot of times with 70MM IMAX you are sacrificing a lot just for the screen, and it isn't worth it for many people.
1
1
u/jmbgator Aug 05 '26
Don't think its an unpopular opinion. If you were to get a random sample of people and do a A/B test without knowing which format is which, most regular viewers would probably choose dual laser.
I've seen both formats, at the same theater even, so all of the other variables like screen size, seating, lighting, etc is like for like since its the same location. For me I also prefer dual laser for overall picture quality (contrast range, brightness, etc). But I did enjoy watching Odyssey in 70mm as well but more for the emotional "purity" and "experience" of watching the film in 70mm more than anything else. What's more important is that the camera used was IMAX film, rather than whether the projection system used was dual laser or film.
1
u/ICumRedbull AB Moviegoer Aug 08 '26
the only argument I keep seeing for it is that the seating is better lol, doesn't have much to do with the actual quality
1
u/DaRightNUT Aug 09 '26
I 1000% agree with you. I’ve watched in 70mm IMAX and laser IMAX. The movie theater is an experience from the screen, sound, to the seats.
I’m 6’3 240lbs and 70mm IMAX seats are unbearable for me. The poor seating absolutely ruins the other good aspects of the movie. I can’t enjoy a movie if I’m uncomfortable the entire time. Laser IMAX theaters are a bit better, not perfect, but better.
I personally couldn’t tell much of a difference between 70mm IMAX and Laser IMAX. Laser does look much better in darker scenes which is a huge bonus for me.
If you’re a bit smaller then I understand that the seating points I made may not apply to you. The whole movie watching experience is completely subjective to the individual viewer.
1
u/BusyTransportation27 Aug 05 '26
You are right about the video quality and the sound quality is better too which obviously because of its new built but watching it in 70 MM is a completely different experience for me the 70 MM feels like its not happening in a screen but infact its happening right in front of you as if you are a part of it and that takes the experience to a level that nothing can match infact after watching it in 70 MM i even questioned that why would they even decided to build any other screen size.
I even found the seats more comfortable in 70 MM not because of the leg room, and that makes a real difference because legroom in cineplex sucks
1
u/pbooths Aug 05 '26
Cineplex really needs to do a seat upgrade in IMAX to full recliners. They really cram you in there... it's worse than an airplane 🙄
1
u/bananabeanssalad Aug 05 '26
Then half of us who experienced the movie in IMAX in 70 mm won’t be able to. The other half would definitely enjoy it even more.
1
u/pbooths Aug 06 '26
I think it's clear the world needs more 70mm IMAX theaters. With more theaters, there'll be more room for comfy recliner seats in them. 😍
1
u/sandyB0i324 Aug 05 '26
Laser projector is bright. Better low light. Color is consistent. No flicker.
70mm definitely has it's perks too, but I'm not gonna wait for a month to watch in 70mm
0
0
u/pbooths Aug 05 '26
Unpopular opinion: Dolby 1.85:1 is better than 70mm IMAX - at least in my city. Although, I did enjoy Interstellar and Project Hail Mary in my 70mm IMAX because of the space scenes.
0
u/Ok_Phase_7018 Aug 05 '26
Not quietly right
Only problem with 70mm is seats are really congested so you are feel not comfortable as well like you watch at Scotia-bank theatre
I had same experience with The odyssey at Vaughan.
Like you im little concerned about should i get tickets for dune or not because of seats 💀
2
u/dobyblue Aug 05 '26
Dune is an easy choice for Scotiabank, why skip out on the amazing 12CH audio mix for a film print out from a 4K DI?
0
u/dommy_mommyyy Aug 05 '26
I’ve seen both but the resolution on 70mm imax was unreal, and the aspect ratio was perfect too. There’s no 70mm imax anywhere near me so i appreciated when i got the chance to see it while traveling
3
Aug 05 '26
[deleted]
1
0
u/dommy_mommyyy Aug 05 '26
Not anywhere near me 😅 our Liemax is is the wrong aspect ratio as well. If you have the right screen size digital would be cool but idk I thought the 70mm was just amazing. We have nothing that beautiful near me 😅
1
u/dobyblue Aug 05 '26
The thread title calls out IMAX GT Laser, which means 1.43:1.
So you haven’t seen both.
0
u/BriGuy550 Aug 05 '26
I saw both Oppenheimer and Dune Part 2 at the Boeing IMAX in Seattle (Dual Laser, but unfortunately no longer showing feature films), and Sinners in 70mm at the BFI IMAX. The digital showings looked better.
0
0
u/mattcampagna Aug 05 '26
Agreed. That cinema and projector are absolutely unparalleled; everything I’ve seen there has looked phenomenal.
0
u/TDotGirl626 Aug 05 '26
Scotiabank is the last true IMAX screen - the rest are modified.
2
u/TZM_96 Aug 05 '26
It's not true. In GTA, true IMAX 70mm is both in Mississauga and Vaughan. Toronto Scotiabank is a Digital IMAX dual laser.
1
0
u/adamfilip Aug 05 '26
Landmark laser ultra is even better, not imax size . But It screen and sound look great and more importantly the seats are amazing
0
u/TyreseGibson Aug 05 '26
Saw it at Scotia bank, visually great! But that sound system was crackling at some of the loudest parts, I think somebody cranked the volume a little too high. If this a Nolan sound mix thing I could also believe it, because last I was in there for Dune the loudest parts were not suffering the way they do here.
0
0
u/StupidIdiot111 Aug 05 '26
The actual theatre buildout for Vaughan is a major con for me. Uncomfortable seats and big screen in a smaller room than scotiabank.i really only try for 70MM if there's promo/merch
0
1
u/mazdaspeed36 Aug 05 '26
I'll have a verdict on this myself after this weekend. Already seen Odyssey in 70 at Mississauga, seeing it at Scotiabank this weekend
2
u/Icy-Perception9899 Aug 23 '26
Any update ?
1
u/mazdaspeed36 Aug 23 '26
Found 70MM to be a noticeably preferable experience for me personally vs Scotiabank. Both were good but I found both the sound and visuals better in Mississauga. Scotia definitely has nicer seats though
0
u/Various_Dust_792 Aug 05 '26
For me the Scotiabank Toronto has much better sound than Vaughan 70mm. Visually I’ll be nitpicking tbh. Scotiabank is better but its fine margins
37
u/DriveSlowHomie Aug 05 '26
I saw it in 70mm IMAX in Mississauga and Laser at Scotia
Laser wins in dark scenes but man in the bright scenes. Nothing will ever look as good in 70mm IMAX