Rec
📽️
Buckle up, kkelmyss.
There are two film formats still projected in theaters today: 35mm and 70mm (aka 65mm).
35mm was repurposed from Kodak's 135 photographic film standard. Instead of running the film horizontally behind the lens, it was run vertically. This enabled more exposures per foot of film at less resolution. But as cinema grew in popularity, the desire for cleaner images and higher resolutions also grew. Larger exposure area was necessary to achieve this.
Cinerama was a cumbersome, yet impressive, short-lived solution. This standard required three synchronized 35mm cinema cameras to record the movie and three synchronized 35mm projectors to display the three separate film reels as one large-format ultra-wide image. Insane and beautiful.
VistaVision was a simpler solution. It simply rotated the 35mm film 90 degrees and ran it horizontally behind the lens like still cameras. This significantly increased the exposure area and thus the resolution. VistaVison was only relevant for about 10 years but laid the groundwork for future innovation. The format was famously used by ILM for its renowned special effects, starting with Star Wars. And was resurrected last year to film The Brutalist.
70mm was the straight forward answer to increasing exposure area—just make the film bigger. This standard was run vertically past the lens like standard 35mm and offered nearly double the resolution. 65mm film is actually used for shooting and the finished movie is transferred to 70mm film for projecting. The terms are used interchangeably because they both contribute the finished product. Lawrence of Arabia is a notable film shot using 70mm to accommodate its ultra-wide vistas.
IMAX 70mm took inspiration from VistaVision. It rotates 70mm film 90 degrees and runs it horizontally behind the lens further increasing the exposure area and putting it within spitting distance of medium format photography. These are big-ass exposures. It's dramatically more expensive to shoot and project movies in this format. But it produces a gorgeous high-resolution image. And gives Christopher Nolan a huge hardon.
Acquisition formats vary for movies. But when it comes to projection, there are predominantly only two film formats today. You're most likely to find a standard 35mm projector at your local independent theater. IMAX 70mm is the other and it's even rarer. Standard 70mm projection rarer still.
There are two film formats still projected in theaters today: 35mm and 70mm (aka 65mm).
35mm was repurposed from Kodak's 135 photographic film standard. Instead of running the film horizontally behind the lens, it was run vertically. This enabled more exposures per foot of film at less resolution. But as cinema grew in popularity, the desire for cleaner images and higher resolutions also grew. Larger exposure area was necessary to achieve this.
Cinerama was a cumbersome, yet impressive, short-lived solution. This standard required three synchronized 35mm cinema cameras to record the movie and three synchronized 35mm projectors to display the three separate film reels as one large-format ultra-wide image. Insane and beautiful.
VistaVision was a simpler solution. It simply rotated the 35mm film 90 degrees and ran it horizontally behind the lens like still cameras. This significantly increased the exposure area and thus the resolution. VistaVison was only relevant for about 10 years but laid the groundwork for future innovation. The format was famously used by ILM for its renowned special effects, starting with Star Wars. And was resurrected last year to film The Brutalist.
70mm was the straight forward answer to increasing exposure area—just make the film bigger. This standard was run vertically past the lens like standard 35mm and offered nearly double the resolution. 65mm film is actually used for shooting and the finished movie is transferred to 70mm film for projecting. The terms are used interchangeably because they both contribute the finished product. Lawrence of Arabia is a notable film shot using 70mm to accommodate its ultra-wide vistas.
IMAX 70mm took inspiration from VistaVision. It rotates 70mm film 90 degrees and runs it horizontally behind the lens further increasing the exposure area and putting it within spitting distance of medium format photography. These are big-ass exposures. It's dramatically more expensive to shoot and project movies in this format. But it produces a gorgeous high-resolution image. And gives Christopher Nolan a huge hardon.
Acquisition formats vary for movies. But when it comes to projection, there are predominantly only two film formats today. You're most likely to find a standard 35mm projector at your local independent theater. IMAX 70mm is the other and it's even rarer. Standard 70mm projection rarer still.
Feb 11, 2025
Related Recs
Rec
📽Man i thought the screen stuff was blown out of proportion but damn i love 70mm imax bc of Sinners! Really makes a huge difference in viewing this film specifically. Saw it in AMC dolby the day after 70mm and sure i still love the movie (check my letterboxd if you want/care!) but the use of the extra space really makes dealing with the amc city walk seats worth it!
Wish i had waited to get the 70mm promotional strip theyre doing this weekend but cant win them all.
Wish i had waited to get the 70mm promotional strip theyre doing this weekend but cant win them all.
Rec
🎟I just booked tickets to the very final screening of the final Mission: Impossible film, (appropriately) titled Final Reckoning. About a month ago, I embarked on an Impossible Mission and began watching the whole M:I franchise from the first movie, as I had only ever seen Fallout (which absolutely rips, like you gotta try at at least watch that).
Purely thanks to the three month theatrical run, I managed to spend a whole month getting through the series (while taking many detours and watching many other unrelated films), and when I checked my schedule, fate aligned and I could only actually make it to the VERY LAST screening of the film.
I think EVERY movie should have this. The problem with indie, international (as in non-US and occasionally UK), arthouse or retro releases in Australia is that they usually last for anywhere between a single day or two weeks. If you're completely not available for that, you cannot show up late to the party.
It's even worse when weird restrictions are there that don't make sense. Sing Sing was one of my favourite films of last year and it was only distributed to Dendy Cinemas (a more mid-tier cinema chain with decent but not plentiful locations) and didn't even play at every Dendy cinema, only certain ones that got it. It's ridiculous!
Purely thanks to the three month theatrical run, I managed to spend a whole month getting through the series (while taking many detours and watching many other unrelated films), and when I checked my schedule, fate aligned and I could only actually make it to the VERY LAST screening of the film.
I think EVERY movie should have this. The problem with indie, international (as in non-US and occasionally UK), arthouse or retro releases in Australia is that they usually last for anywhere between a single day or two weeks. If you're completely not available for that, you cannot show up late to the party.
It's even worse when weird restrictions are there that don't make sense. Sing Sing was one of my favourite films of last year and it was only distributed to Dendy Cinemas (a more mid-tier cinema chain with decent but not plentiful locations) and didn't even play at every Dendy cinema, only certain ones that got it. It's ridiculous!
Jul 14, 2025
Rec
🎥When I was in my early 20s I worked at a video store called Limelight - the kind of place that had every Takashi Miike movie ever (including his children’s movies) but kept their lights on by stocking 5 copies of Pride and Prejudice. After that, I was lucky enough to get a K********a invite which allowed me to torrent deep cuts by Olivier Assayas, and prized .mp4s of Cameron Jamie’s movies. Maybe I just didn’t like leaving the house but I don’t think that 2005 - 2015 were great years to be going to the theater anyway. When I moved back to Vancouver I didn’t know many people so my sister suggested I volunteer at The Cinematheque, and it’s become one of my favorite places in the city. It’s basically got a lot of the same programming as The Metrograph minus a lot of the annoying pretensions of arthouse theaters that are… annoying. The Cinematheque even went through a redesign and it looks even better than it did before which never happens. Volunteers get to see whatever for free so sometimes I find myself there 4 times a week. Some of the most memorable screenings include Maborosi, The White Sheik, Even Dwarves Started Small, Caught By Night, Gun Crazy, and Out Of The Blue.
Dec 21, 2021
Top Recs from @lucius
Rec
Alright y'all, standards have gotten a little lax around here and rec quality has taken a dip (I'm including myself in this). Here are some pointers for High Rec Standards.
ANATOMY OF A REC: TITLE—This is the rec or recommendations. This is NOT a lead in. Type exactly what you're recommending here. What appears in the Title should finish this sentence, "I recommend _____."
BODY—This supports the rec and anything goes. Supporting statements, supporting essays, additional recs, you can get silly, you can pontificate. You can do anything you want. Except putting the main rec down here. Where does it go? That's right. In the Title 👆
IMAGE—No rules. Add one to preference. It can be relevant or a non sequitur.
LINK—I highly recommend links but it's not as important as the Title or Body. If you are recommending something that has an online presence (music, movies, websites, products, etc.), Piffies want to click on it immediately. Don't make us google. Be kind a leave a link.
EMOJI—No rules. Express yourself.
ANTI-RECS: They exist and they are valid recs. "Anti-Rec: _____" clearly communicates this is something best avoided. But a better way format this type of Rec is to use a modifier or verb that flows with "I recommend _____." Ex. I recommend... Not Eating Tacks, Avoiding Area X, Leaving Off the Anchovies, etc.—(Formatting Anti-Recs this way first recommended by tyler the Creator)
ANATOMY OF AN ASK: TITLE—This is the question or topic of the Ask. Asks can solicit advice or start a discussion. You have some flexibility here because the Ask is expected to be expounded upon in the body if it needs more context. Just be clear. Again, this is not a lead in. Be direct and ask the question or state the topic.
BODY—Provide more context. Narrow the recommendation field. Add relevant links. Remember, the Ask goes in the Title 👆
EMOJI—No rules. Express yourself.
ANSWERING AN ASK—Recs on Asks can break style as dictated by the Ask. If the Ask is looking for Recs, give Recs following style. If it's asking for opinions, give your opinion. Asking for links? Give links! Respond however you would respond some someone IRL. Asks start a conversation so you can be more conversational. But keep in mind that these Recs will appear in the main feed. So where you can maintain Rec style, do so.
Example: WHAT’S YOUR CURRENT LETTERBOXD TOP 4?
A response to this with High Rec Standards would look something like this: TITLE—Lists your current Letterboxd top 4. You are recommending these four movies. BODY—Free reign here. Drop your Letterboxd @. Talk about the movies. Make a quip. Emoji. Relevant links. Nothing. IMAGE—Optional. Screenshot of your top four. Frame from a movie. Dealer's choice. LINK—Add your Letterboxd profile only if you want to be found. EMOJI—Whatever. But it'd be nice if it was relevant.
DISCLAIMER: This is a living community document! These are only my recommendations for a foundation. Debate and Discussion of proper style are Encouraged. Any editions and changes to the PI.FYI STYLE GUIDE will be notated with attribution.
Changelog: 07.26.2024—Clarified a Rec is not limited to one recommendation. Recs can recommend multiple things. Thanks to shegoestoanotherschool for identifying the issue. / Added guidance for Anti-Rec format. 02.11.2025—Moved SpongeBob Bubble Blowing Technique video link from the top level into the body ("some pointers") so the embed wouldn't override the High Quality instructional graphic.
ANATOMY OF A REC: TITLE—This is the rec or recommendations. This is NOT a lead in. Type exactly what you're recommending here. What appears in the Title should finish this sentence, "I recommend _____."
BODY—This supports the rec and anything goes. Supporting statements, supporting essays, additional recs, you can get silly, you can pontificate. You can do anything you want. Except putting the main rec down here. Where does it go? That's right. In the Title 👆
IMAGE—No rules. Add one to preference. It can be relevant or a non sequitur.
LINK—I highly recommend links but it's not as important as the Title or Body. If you are recommending something that has an online presence (music, movies, websites, products, etc.), Piffies want to click on it immediately. Don't make us google. Be kind a leave a link.
EMOJI—No rules. Express yourself.
ANTI-RECS: They exist and they are valid recs. "Anti-Rec: _____" clearly communicates this is something best avoided. But a better way format this type of Rec is to use a modifier or verb that flows with "I recommend _____." Ex. I recommend... Not Eating Tacks, Avoiding Area X, Leaving Off the Anchovies, etc.—(Formatting Anti-Recs this way first recommended by tyler the Creator)
ANATOMY OF AN ASK: TITLE—This is the question or topic of the Ask. Asks can solicit advice or start a discussion. You have some flexibility here because the Ask is expected to be expounded upon in the body if it needs more context. Just be clear. Again, this is not a lead in. Be direct and ask the question or state the topic.
BODY—Provide more context. Narrow the recommendation field. Add relevant links. Remember, the Ask goes in the Title 👆
EMOJI—No rules. Express yourself.
ANSWERING AN ASK—Recs on Asks can break style as dictated by the Ask. If the Ask is looking for Recs, give Recs following style. If it's asking for opinions, give your opinion. Asking for links? Give links! Respond however you would respond some someone IRL. Asks start a conversation so you can be more conversational. But keep in mind that these Recs will appear in the main feed. So where you can maintain Rec style, do so.
Example: WHAT’S YOUR CURRENT LETTERBOXD TOP 4?
A response to this with High Rec Standards would look something like this: TITLE—Lists your current Letterboxd top 4. You are recommending these four movies. BODY—Free reign here. Drop your Letterboxd @. Talk about the movies. Make a quip. Emoji. Relevant links. Nothing. IMAGE—Optional. Screenshot of your top four. Frame from a movie. Dealer's choice. LINK—Add your Letterboxd profile only if you want to be found. EMOJI—Whatever. But it'd be nice if it was relevant.
DISCLAIMER: This is a living community document! These are only my recommendations for a foundation. Debate and Discussion of proper style are Encouraged. Any editions and changes to the PI.FYI STYLE GUIDE will be notated with attribution.
Changelog: 07.26.2024—Clarified a Rec is not limited to one recommendation. Recs can recommend multiple things. Thanks to shegoestoanotherschool for identifying the issue. / Added guidance for Anti-Rec format. 02.11.2025—Moved SpongeBob Bubble Blowing Technique video link from the top level into the body ("some pointers") so the embed wouldn't override the High Quality instructional graphic.
