Red IMAX

[najafi/didarfilm]

Hi All

i remember a prototype 4k project by the name of quadHD .
the developers , had attached 4 HD CMOS together and with a powerful openGL based software , 4 video sources would be aligned together.

we can put 4 mystorium cmos beside each other and ingest a 16k image sequence .
i know the massive problems we may encounter in storage , encoding and alignment but it's marvalous , WE WOULD HAVE RED IMAX

[laguun]

we can put 4 mystorium cmos beside each other and ingest a 16k image sequence .
i know the massive problems we may encounter in storage , encoding and alignment but it's marvalous , WE WOULD HAVE RED IMAX
pure 4k is easily enough for imax.

average 35mm screenings in the cinema around the corner are typically giving ~1.4-1.8k resolution.
The vast mayority of A-budgets DI & VFX of the recent 10 years are 2k in the -master-. After the master you have several photochemical/mechanical generations.
http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

[JD Holloway]

Testing a few years ago revealed that 750 lines is actually the average across screens in North America.

Makes you shudder....

[Brandon Freeman]

I can tell. Even going to my local Edwards Cinema, the resolution looks fuzzy at best. Like, recently, at our Idaho International Film Festival (I know, funny title with Idaho and International in the same sentence), my short film shot on HDV and mastered to MiniDV (shot and lit well, of course) didn't look too bad on the big screen (comparatively).

Makes you wonder.

[Tom Lowe]

Perhaps you could build a rig that held 4 REDs facing the same direction, and then software could help you merge the four 4K sequences into a 16K gigantic image. then to project I guess you could just transfer to IMAX film, but that would probably be super expensive, I would imagine.

[Peter McCully]

pure 4k is easily enough for imax.


http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf
I kind of agree. But to get 4x3 Imax aspect ratio from the Red sensor is a problem. It would no longer be 4K if the height is governed by the more 1:85-ish aspect of the Red. Perhaps a 4x3 sensor which is windowed for 1:85 and 2:35 output on the RED 2?

[David Mullen ASC]

pure 4k is easily enough for imax.

average 35mm screenings in the cinema around the corner are typically giving ~1.4-1.8k resolution.
The vast mayority of A-budgets DI & VFX of the recent 10 years are 2k in the -master-. After the master you have several photochemical/mechanical generations.
http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

4K is close to 35mm camera negative resolution, not 15-perf 65mm IMAX.

Regardless of how much resolution loss occurs in the chain of events to a release print screening, you want to start out at 4K in order to not lose too much quality in the final presentation, if doing a traditional release from an IP/IN to release print. 2K D.I.'s generally look a little soft on the big screen unless you see a print from the original digital negative (which more and more studios are doing by outputting multiple negatives from the digital master.)

So IF you can guarantee that, then you may be OK with 2K and not lose any significant quality in the presentation. This is one reason why 2K digital projection is about on par, resolution-wise, with good 35mm print projection.

It's also why 4K digital projection, which is basically the resolution of the original 35mm negative, looks more like 5-perf 70mm print projection used to look.

As for 4K blown-up to IMAX, you can blow anything up to IMAX -- "Attack of the Clones" was shot in HDCAM and blown-up to IMAX. Many 2K D.I.'s are blown-up to IMAX. But the secret to all of those blow-ups is that the image has to be de-grained / de-noised in the IMAX DMR process and then sharpened heavily. So 4K digital like from the RED would blow-up pretty well to IMAX, since it is not grainy. But that's not the same thing as saying that 4K is the same resolution as a 15-perf 65mm IMAX negative.

In an article on the IMAX movie "Hurricane in the Bayou", David Keighley, who does the IMAX blow-ups for the studios using his IMAX DMR process, said that it would take 18K resolution scanning to truly capture all the information on a 15-perf 65mm negative. Although most efx work for IMAX movies settle for a much lower resolution, like 6K to 8K. Like I said, anything can be blown-up to IMAX and as long as you don't have grain enlargement, you have a hard time judging the source material, so softer shots with some digital sharpening can be acceptable, but it's not true IMAX resolution.

I've been hearing this argument for several years now about how the average theater screen barely has 1K resolution by the time it hits the screen and usually the argument is used by people who want to settle for lower resolution targets for origination. I've projected 35mm straight, 35mm-to-4K, 35mm-to-2K, etc, and you can see the resolution differences on the big screen. So the argument that somehow print projection reduces everything down to sub 1K doesn't really hold water. We can see the difference between 35mm and 16mm even on NTSC broadcast, which has less resolution than either format. So oversampling does create visible image quality improvements.

And you need to have more resolution to start out with if the release process lowers it. If what the average screen gets is barely 1K, imagine how bad it would look if everything was therefore shot at 1K? So the argument that the theaters get 1K or worse doesn't really mean anything. It shouldn't lead us to accept lower standards for shooting. It just means we have the potential of improving theatrical presentation.

Ten years or so from now when 4K origination and 4K D.I.'s and 4K projection are commonplace... people are going to look back at the 2K & HD movies of this generation and notice that they look soft, which is another argument for shooting and mastering in 4K today.

[Tom Lowe]

I don't think it's gonna take 10 years for 4K acquisition, projection, etc. :)

[Paris Remillard]

Not to pick nits, but wouldn't four 4k sensors grouped together make an 8k image size? Since 4 sensors total would just double each direction. So to actually get the 18k resolution that David mentions is in a 15-perf 65mm negative would take more than 16 4k sensors? Is my math right here? Cause that's a lot of pixels.

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, film doesn't have pixels so you can't really ascribe a precise 1:1 relationship between pixel resolution and negative size.

Also, 18K is the guess by Dave Keighley at the scanning resolution necessary to capture all the detail on a 15-perf 65mm negative (and often it's done at lower resolutions for financial reasons), but that's not exactly the same thing as saying that a digital camera has to be 18K.

And as I was saying, you also have to separate the issues of origination resolution and projection resolution. IF you could shoot digital and then project digital at the same resolution, then IMAX projection, if digital, probably could be 8K-to-10K for the typical IMAX screen and look similar to 15-perf print projection (in the way that 2K digital projection looks similar in resolution to 4K printed to film and projected), so you'd only need to build a digital camera that was 8K to 10K across -- so 4 RED sensors together would probably produce a reasonable IMAX-quality image.

This is not an exact science (unless you start measuring MTF's maybe) because viewing distance also affects perceived sharpness and resolution, and not everyone in an IMAX theater sits at the same distance to the screen.

Also, the lack of grain in a digital image goes a long way to allowing you to enlarge the image without being distracted by grain.

So I think the four RED sensor idea isn't a bad one for special venue IMAX-type presentations. However, the truth is that people use all sorts of formats these days for IMAX (sometimes 8-perf 35mm VistaVision or 8-perf or 10-perf 65mm IWERKS, etc.). James Cameron, after all, used HD for his "Ghosts of the Abyss" in 3D IMAX. It is worked OK, partly because most of it was underwater material but also because overlaying two HD images tends to confuse the eye and make it hard to judge sharpness. Some no doubt that regular 4K RED is going to be used for some types of IMAX shots, and with some clever post sharpening, most viewers are going to be OK with it, even if it's not really IMAX quality. Which was my original point, that IMAX is not 4K. 35mm negative is close to 4K, and if IMAX were 4K, then 35mm would be IMAX, etc., which is not logical since a 15-perf 65mm frame is like combining 7 or 8 4-perf 35mm frames together in terms of surface area.

[Tom Lowe]

Why not just build a special "RED IMAX" camera with one sensor the size of a 15-perf IMAX negative? Then you wouldn't have to deal with merging the images.

Of course, it will be up to Graeme to get that 18K footage down a reasonable 100MB/s. :)

[tj williams]

4K RED is going to be used for some types of IMAX shots, and with some clever post sharpening, most viewers are going to be OK with it, even if it's not really IMAX quality. Quoted out of context from David Mullen

We all go into theatres and see a real variety of projections which don't really correlate too well with the price of admission. At the end of the day the various degradations of compression AD/DA, and chemical processes mean that the print the director and Dp saw a direct contact print from the negative is the best anyone is going to see the movie. INMHO The real test of whether or not a format works in delivery is whether it's audience is distracted.

We are proposing just such a film to an organization who has an Imax theatre. Betcha the audience is going away happy...

[David Mullen ASC]

Most audiences go to IMAX theaters to see 35mm (mostly from 2K D.I. masters) digitally blown-up to IMAX anyway, than they go to see original 15-perf 65mm productions, so obviously they are OK with the quality -- I don't think that's an issue.

The only thing that I want to make clear is that 4K RED is not 15-perf 65mm quality in terms of resolution, that's all. You can make something for IMAX in all sorts of sub-IMAX formats though if you want. I do think, however, that it makes IMAX less unique and special when it's no longer that super clear and detailed image on a giant screen. When you see something actually shot in 15-perf 65mm, you feel you can step inside the frame, it's so detailed. 4K may be "sharp enough" but it's not going to have that level of high frequency detail, that kind of clarity of a 5-story tall screen.

[Stephen Webb]

You can make something for IMAX in all sorts of sub-IMAX formats though if you want.

And just to prove the point, I was at an event premiering 7 short films this week at the local IMAX and they were projected from... DVD.

[Jeremy Hughes]

Wikipedia says that IMAX has 10,000 horizontal photosites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#Technical_aspects But they do not cite their source. The requirement for film prints to IMAX from digital is 5616 x 4096. So if it's true that IMAX is 10,000 x 7,000, IMAX digital isn't living up to it's full potential. Yet.

Jarred suggested using a vertical anamorphic mesmerizer lens. Click here (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=77200) to view an old thread at DVXuser from November.

[Ace]

I actually have a scan from a 65mm piece of film, which was scanned on a high end Imacon scanner. The detail maxed out at 7000pixels x 6000 pixels... Ill try upload the scan when i find it. The detail is all there though.

[Paris Remillard]

Back to the first post, I wonder what it would cost for Red to cut a 65mm sized Mysterium. Something to compete with the Phantom 65 (4k), which is I think about $250,000. An 8k 65mm specialty camera, that uses existing optics, offering true (or close to) IMAX resolution/experience...

I mean, let's get the Red One out first, but it would seem to be a fairly plausible idea...

And, honestly, like Tom mentioned, the data rates with Redcode RAW wouldn't necessarily be that bad...comparitively...and thoeretically.

[David Mullen ASC]

The problem might be the same one why Arri built a 65mm Arriscanner but not a 65mm Arrilaser -- the sales volume might not be high enough to justify the R&D and manufacturing of a RED IMAX camera, though eventually someone will build a digital IMAX set-up.

[Michael Hastings]

The only thing that I want to make clear is that 4K RED is not 15-perf 65mm quality in terms of resolution, that's all. You can make something for IMAX in all sorts of sub-IMAX formats though if you want. I do think, however, that it makes IMAX less unique and special when it's no longer that super clear and detailed image on a giant screen. When you see something actually shot in 15-perf 65mm, you feel you can step inside the frame, it's so detailed. 4K may be "sharp enough" but it's not going to have that level of high frequency detail, that kind of clarity of a 5-story tall screen.


Here's one for the experienced 35mm DPs.

Although I intellectually understand the use of shallow depth of field for theatrical/narrative features, I have been primarily a 2/3" video guy.

The shallower depth of field of 35 motion pictures has been generally desirable, however is it the "sweet spot"? or if you had your druthers - and the lenses and support gear to go with it - would you prefer an even larger format?

And the follow on question:

Canon just released a 22 megapixel full frame i.e. 36mm x 24mm sensor, digital SLR that does 10 frames per second. When they get a generation or two down the road and have 24 FPS or more would this be a RED competitor/digital IMAX?

[Tom Lowe]

It sounds like an 8K larger Mysterium-style sensor in 65mm negative size and format would be more than viable for IMAX. Again, though, the film transfer cost will probably be very high.

Also imagine shooting at 6- or 8K with 65mm optics and being able to downsample to 4K for your master. wow!! The image quality would be off the charts.

[jbeale]

Canon just released a 22 megapixel full frame i.e. 36mm x 24mm sensor, digital SLR that does 10 frames per second. When they get a generation or two down the road and have 24 FPS or more would this be a RED competitor/digital IMAX?

There currently is no 22 Mpixel Canon DSLR announced, much less released. Such a camera has been rumoured, eg. http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/01/canon-readying-22-megapixel-mini-1ds-mark-ii/ but as yet it is not confirmed.

The highest-res DSLR Canon currently offers is the 16.7 Mpixel EOS-1Ds Mark 2
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=10598

[Paris Remillard]

>Canon just released a 22 megapixel full frame i.e. 36mm x 24mm sensor, digital SLR that does 10 frames per second. When they get a generation or two down the road and have 24 FPS or more would this be a RED competitor/digital IMAX?<

22MP is about 5.5k so it isn't really that much more real estate than 4.5k. And the mirror shutter on dSLRs is always mentioned as a problem in this scenario. But, If the sensor could be live and the shutter locked up, I personally don't see why it couldn't work, given that Canon built a sensor with the architecture to run at 24fps or higher. I've actually wondered if it wouldn't be possible to use the bigger 24x36mm frame with rehoused (or not) still lenses to get some digital Vistavision. A bit closer to scope DOF without anamorphics.
It seems to me that Canon could easily compete with Red in this market if they were to ,say, replace the XL-H1 with a camera with a 35mm sized sensor, (either 24x36mm or 22.5x15mm) that uses EOS glass. I asked a canon rep about this prospect about a year ago and he wasn't havin' it. That was ,however, before Red at NAB. So, who knows what the next few years will bring. Either way it's looking better for us.

[Michael Hastings]

There currently is no 22 Mpixel Canon DSLR announced, much less released. Such a camera has been rumoured, eg. http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/01/canon-readying-22-megapixel-mini-1ds-mark-ii/ but as yet it is not confirmed.

The highest-res DSLR Canon currently offers is the 16.7 Mpixel EOS-1Ds Mark 2
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=10598

Absolutely correct sir. I confused the rumored 22 mp full frame with the EOS1D MKIII announcement.

[Craig Ryan]

When I saw Spiderman 3 in IMAX, i looked at it as 35mm film in all of its resolution glory; basically the same way I'd look at 35mm in digital 4k projection...im guessing it would look VERY similar, just without the IMAX DMR processing which I'm sure makes a difference, but all in all from what I understand the DMR process mainly scans the image to its fullest potential A(for 35mm it would be 4k or up), does some clean up, then sharpens the crap out of it. If you had a 35mm 4k DI, and did a similar digital grade, AND projected that digitally (no information loss), you'd have something pretty damn close to IMAX DMRs. So I agree, its no question that RED 4k or even 4.5k will definitely perform, if not OUTPERFORM what people are currently shelling out to see in IMAX theaters.

As far as seeing full 15perf 70mm IMAX...in a digital 10k+ format? Well i think most of us cinemapile geeks would have our socks knocked off...permanently. I'm still waiting to see Baraka and 2001: A Space Odyssey in 4k projection.

[David Mullen ASC]

Actually the IMAX DMR process works with whatever the studio hands them to convert. In the case of movies like "Spiderman 3", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", you're seeing the final 2K D.I. master converted to IMAX. Same goes for "Superman Begins", shot in 1080P HD using the Genesis but converted to 2K for the post work.

In the case of "Batman Begins", which did not do a D.I., the studio gave them a 35mm anamorphic IP made off of the original negative -- this IP was scanned at 4K but some day exterior shots were scanned at 6K as an experiment.

Then the DMR process removes all the grain and then sharpens the image. The files are recorded out to 15-perf 65mm camera negative using a CRT recorder (since there are no 65mm laser recorders.)

I'm sure that the RED image would be similar to a 4K scan of 35mm and upconverted to IMAX -- and would need less or no-degraining obviously.

Generally when I see a 35mm-shot movie in IMAX, I sit a couple of rows farther back (than when I see something shot in IMAX) since the movie was not composed with that large of an image in mind. And since most of these movies are 2.35 and printed letterboxed in the 4x3 IMAX frame, really it's more like seeing a blow-up to standard 5-perf 70mm like they used to do. Which is great -- I think of these IMAX DMR blow-ups like I'm seeing the best possible print projection. Although they do have a unique look from all that degraining and sharpening -- I hate to say it, but it can make the movies look a little like they were shot digitally, sort of clean and plasticy.

[laguun]

The only thing that I want to make clear is that 4K RED is not 15-perf 65mm quality in terms of resolution, that's all.

I have to assist David Mullen here - when i posted that 4k resolution is easily enough for IMAX (its filled often with uprezzed 1080p/2k anyhow those days...), i was speaking about -what the audiences sees-. I was not speaking of the theroretical maximum resolution of 65mm/15perf shooting, which should be higher. i was speaking about the whole chain and the final results which are archieved. 4k is already better than much of the imax movies shown today.



I do think, however, that it makes IMAX less unique and special when it's no longer that super clear and detailed image on a giant screen. When you see something actually shot in 15-perf 65mm, you feel you can step inside the frame, it's so detailed. 4K may be "sharp enough" but it's not going to have that level of high frequency detail, that kind of clarity of a 5-story tall screen.
i wouldn´t agree. i have been myself at many direct 1080p/2k/4k/35mm/65mm projection comparisions, and some solo-demonstrations of even higher reolutions (@NHK in Tokio, the UHD 8k @ IBC2006 etc)

bottomline:
- On a ~20m wide screen already 2k/4k is hard to differentiate if you are not sitting in the very first rows of a typical cinema.
- No problem to see the difference between 2k/4k when image is still, a/b split, high DOF, no motionblur, motiv is detailed (as a newspaper) near the screen.
- Once images are rolling, camera moves, moblur, DOF etc take their share, 2k/4k is hard to differentiate for experts, impossible for the audiences if they are sitting in more distant rows.

most important: we never should forget that when we discuss the theoretical nonsense of a special projection, we always have to take the -chain- into consideration, not a single moment in the production process.

35mm looses the mayority of its original image quality and resolution by moving through the different steps in the pipeline and mechanical/photochemical processes, even when you scan/DI the 35mm neg -at once- with >4k. thats why 35mm in typical projection is always much below 2k - you can´t record at 2k and keep the resolution at 2k.

i surely don´t hope that 2k/4k projection won´t repeat 35/65mms history. what we know, thanks to red, that digital 4k aquisition will become one of the most popular formats of the next ten years. and for production & aquisition 4k is a blessing. (and for your storage seller as well )

[David Mullen ASC]

I can't really agree with that. I've also seen plenty of demos projected in IMAX theaters of different digital and film formats. 4K would be "acceptable" but it would not be equivalent to 15-perf 65mm photography & projection.

Simple logic tells you that if current 2K DLP digital projection is similar in detail to projection of a direct answer print off of a 35mm negative, then 4K projection, being twice the horizontal pixel resolution, would be closer to standard 5-perf 70mm print projection. And IMAX is made up of three 5-perf 70mm frames run horizontally. You'd ideally want to shoot and project at least 8K for an "IMAX" effect on a giant screen, unless you were sitting near the back of the theater.

I don't think you're going to find a lot of engineers in Los Angeles agreeing with you that 4K = IMAX and that 1K = 35mm. If that were true, we could all just shoot and project NTSC for theatrical release and forget about HD, let alone 4K.

I'm a cinematographer and I'm only interested in real-world shooting scenarios. The two questions, which are related, is whether 4K Bayer-filtered photography is close to 35mm color negative resolution or 15-perf 65mm resolution. And the other question is whether 4K projection is close to 5-perf 70mm projection or 15-perf 70mm projection.

I think it could be argued that 4K digital photography and 35mm-to-4K for 4K projection could rival 5-perf 70mm projection (though having seen Bill Bennett's recent 65mm demo, it's clear that shooting in 65mm would provide more detail than 4K digital photography) -- and certainly 4K photography would make a decent IMAX blow-up, but it wouldn't be the same as shooting in 15-perf IMAX.

Despite all the tests that show theatrical projection is down to 1K or so, that fact doesn't really matter because you can still see the differences between HD, 2K, 4K origination, just as you can see the differences between 16mm and 35mm on NTSC broadcast TV. I've seen my own 35mm photography go through a 2K D.I. and intercut with straight non-D.I. material -- of the same shot -- and seen the resolution hit on a medium-sized screen with me sitting halfway back. So there is a difference in resolution that is visible during print projection. The main reason we don't generally object to 2K resolution work is that we don't see it in A-B comparison so we lose any frame of reference, plus most movies these days are shot in close-up where 2K seems plenty sharp.

The resolution loss of projection is not some device or system that levels all formats to look the same, therefore it matters quality-wise whether we shoot 2K or 4K, whatever, even if the final projection is lower than that. And 4K is great -- but it's not IMAX. Unless you've been going to a lot crappier IMAX theaters than I have.

If RED or Dalsa really want to get in hot water, they should start advertising their 4K cameras as being IMAX equivalents... then Panavision could advertise the Genesis as being 5-perf 65mm equivalent.

Let's just stick to 4K = 35mm negative and not get into making claims that it's IMAX quality.

[Ken Corben]

I think we all agree that content is still king.

That said, technically speaking, I think David has elaborated clearly on the format definitions and applicability. IMAX is certainly listening in terms of keeping an edge for their brand, theaters and licensees by expanding their deliverables to beyond science theaters to include Hollywood offerings. Follow the money...

If we switch the conversation from the technical to the practical here's what comes up from a producer's stand point. Yes, using RED in a 3D rig will be IMAX "capable" - more so perhaps in 3D. In fact, the size and capability of a RED 3D rig's reduced size opens new story telling capabilities but it is not visually nor technically 15 perf 70mm.

Does that mean that Cameron's 3D epic feature Avatar (May 2009 release) shot with the 3D Fusion camera system based on cinealta technology (dual stream 1080p 4:2:2 or maybe 4:4:4?) will not break box office records when released on RealD 3D screens and IMAX 3D screens?

If I were a gambling man I'd put money on the fact that this non-IMAX resolution (and subpar RED resolution format) will set new B.O. records on 3D IMAX screens when released - erego - content is king.

The point relating to the initial post/concept of this thread from a business model perspective is that if RED originated footage is upconverted to IMAX, or better yet RED creates a 3D rig based on its initial 4K capability, audiences will pay for a great film experience regardless of comparative resolution or which row they sit in.

Great thread...

[David Mullen ASC]

I think it's a no-brainer that these big entertainment movies from Hollywood, shown in IMAX, will outperform at the box office compared to the typical nature documentary 15-perf 65mm IMAX production.

I think I'm only suggesting that we consider 15-perf 65mm as it's own unique process and it would be a shame to see it disappear since there's nothing quite like it.

[Ace]

If anyones interested.. A scan from 70mm.

http://kyoproject.com/churchdoor.jpg

(Right side slightly out of focus)

[Craig Ryan]

You are my hero Acehole. I've been looking for a nice 70mm scan for a LONG time. Kick ass.