Digital Imax Like Venues

[Joe Taylor]

Seeing how the digital revolution is quickly catching up to 35mm film in terms of presentation, what sort of technology would/will it take for digital to approach IMAX like resoltion? If it is possible, how far away are we from days when a theatre will have IMAX like venue digitally presented and projected?

[Anarri]

We are already there....

But before I give you the goodies....

How much money do you have in the bank?

[Brook Willard]

Having seen 65mm scanned at 4K projected directly alongside footage from Frankie [the original RED prototype] in 4K... well... we're pretty much there already.

[Joe Taylor]

We are already there....

But before I give you the goodies....

How much money do you have in the bank?

-$16.87. Forgot about my electric bill and got an overdraft for that pizza from Shakey's. Why?

[Anarri]

Seeing how the digital revolution is quickly catching up to 35mm film in terms of presentation, what sort of technology would/will it take for digital to approach IMAX like resoltion? If it is possible, how far away are we from days when a theatre will have IMAX like venue digitally presented and projected?

If I dare say, I think 2K is the industry standard and the accepted standard to scan 35mm and 4K is the 65mm equivalent...

On another note, I was really surprised at how fast cinema owners adopted 4K here in Singapore. Can't speak for the folks on the other side of the world. I guess it's more in tune with the "supply and demand" theory.

Once there are enough 4K digital content available (there is more every month), then cinema owners will just hop on the cash cow. It's like in the old days when sync sound was introduced to lure more customers. Film when through so many formats and perfs, then wide-screen films i.e., CinemaScope, Techniscope, Cinerama, VistaVision, etc. and gimmicks i.e., 3-D viewing with cardboard glasses, Smell-O-Vision, etc. and Colour film to keep the crowds coming back to the cinema after the television set was invented. In some horror films (can't remember the title, will update once I remember), they even use to electrocute audience with mini-shocks every time the main character gets tortured; Shock-o-vision. Not forgetting the failed attempt to introduce smell/aroma/stench into the cinema in tune with the visuals on screen a.k.a Smell-O-Vision.

Ok i think I am way off topic, but my point is, as demand for new ways of visually entertaining the masses are required, new technology and new ideas in capturing, editing, storing and distributing ect. will emerge naturally sometimes in leaps like the RED??? (fanboy alert!)

This quote sums it all up "Science enables stories. Stories drive science." -Graeme Nattress

[Ryan Sims]

Resolution is only half the battle. That darn inverse square law comes into play when you need a bright image on a really BIG screen. I've heard of plans to quadruple stack the highend Sony 4K projectors just to get enough lumens on a digital replacement of 65mm.

[J. Bernard Vallon]

Having seen 65mm scanned at 4K projected directly alongside footage from Frankie [the original RED prototype] in 4K... well... we're pretty much there already.

to be fair, IMAX shoots 65mm film horizontally, like a medium format negative, rather than vertically, like Todd A-O. In terms of square mm, even if you call 35mm 2k, IMAX film should be at least 6.6k (if i did my math right), and if you call 35mm 4k, IMAX gets 13k.

[Jeff Coatney]

When will Starbucks, Barnes & Noble or even the local cinema be able to sponsor a 4K BYOM (Bring Your Own Movie) and really revolutionize the movie-going experience?

[Anarri]

When will Starbucks, Barnes & Noble or even the local cinema be able to sponsor a 4K BYOM (Bring Your Own Movie) and really revolutionize the movie-going experience?

Hopefully, when the RED team comes up with their 4K projector and it's affordable to the masses...

[Mike Prevette]

to be fair, IMAX shoots 65mm film horizontally, like a medium format negative, rather than vertically, like Todd A-O. In terms of square mm, even if you call 35mm 2k, IMAX film should be at least 6.6k (if i did my math right), and if you call 35mm 4k, IMAX gets 13k.


While yes that "seems" like it's mathematically correct, physics starts to futz with things. Unfortunately as the negative changes size, light waves stay the same. Since it would be prohibitively expensive to build the lenses larger, the manufacturer's of ask more out of the same size chunks of glass, basically reducing their resolving power with a larger projected image circle. Problems with the lenses get magnified, etc. In the end you get a lower resolving power out of 65mm per negative area. The CoC's assistants use to judge lens focus prove this is an accepted working practice. So in the end 65mm ends up closer to 6k of resolving power than the theoretical 13k.

_mike

[J. Bernard Vallon]

While yes that "seems" like it's mathematically correct, physics starts to futz with things. Unfortunately as the negative changes size, light waves stay the same. Since it would be prohibitively expensive to build the lenses larger, the manufacturer's of ask more out of the same size chunks of glass, basically reducing their resolving power with a larger projected image circle. Problems with the lenses get magnified, etc. In the end you get a lower resolving power out of 65mm per negative area. The CoC's assistants use to judge lens focus prove this is an accepted working practice. So in the end 65mm ends up closer to 6k of resolving power than the theoretical 13k.

_mike

Interesting. So if someone were to design a larger format camera, like the Phantom 65, or even larger, to emulate an IMAX camera, they would be stuck using these larger lenses with less resolving power. The sensor would have between 6k and 13k resolution, and more would really be redundant due to the glass. That would mean the smart thing to do is to make the pixel wells fatter, to catch more light and have a larger DR. Sounds like a good camera to me, if completely huge and expensive to build and operate.

[Brook Willard]

to be fair, IMAX shoots 65mm film horizontally, like a medium format negative, rather than vertically, like Todd A-O. In terms of square mm, even if you call 35mm 2k, IMAX film should be at least 6.6k (if i did my math right), and if you call 35mm 4k, IMAX gets 13k.

Given - my comment was with regards to clarity and resolution. The true resolution is certainly higher than 4K.

Not to mention the FOV differences...

[Rocco Schult]

For reference only, if one's interested:

I mean to having calculated once that 65mm/IMAX is roughly 10 times the area of 35mm academy. :unsure:
And I remember many IMAX's being worked in and printed at 6 and 8k.
Though of course it was limited by calculating power and printing being at least economically limited to 8k at that time.
Looking at computing power today... 8k is still pretty much... :huh: