First movie in 28k?

[toomasio]

Have you guys heard of any movies going for the 28k resolution?

Personally, I will see that movie based on the resolution alone. 28k compressed for theaters would be incredible. I think it would take a while for CGI to catch up with 28k though...no?

[R. Schorman]

That camera wont be available for quite a while...

[Chris Kennedy]

How much is too much? Would your eyes notice a difference between 8k & 28K? Not to mention if projecting digitally at 4k is finally picking up, how much longer until we can project anything at 28k?

For me, 9k is enough, 28k would only be practical for vfx.

[CK Olsen]

Hmmm... I'd far rather finish seven long form projects at 4K simultaneously then to push one at 28K through the pipeline... unless I had ILM's render farm handy... and the world's most chill production team... and a "really far in the distance" delivery date... But ya never know.

[Shawn Bannon]

I recommend going and seeing some Imax films that are shot on 15 perf.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

How much is too much? Would your eyes notice a difference between 8k & 28K? Not to mention if projecting digitally at 4k is finally picking up, how much longer until we can project anything at 28k?

For me, 9k is enough, 28k would only be practical for vfx.

Downscaling to 4K for eliminating noise = ISO 16000 noise free?

:violent5:

[Subhadip Sen]

I don't think there's a projection format currently available that can do 28K justice. Instead, using 12K over the same sensor size would get you incredible resolution - with a greater pixel per area (or the other way round???) density. To leverage that kind of resolution, 35mm projection film isn't enough, we have to go for 70mm, and we know how rare those are. That said, of course this is a thing of the future, as we move to digital projectors with greater resolutions.

My other concern is - how much light would you need to get a deep depth of field for a 16x9 sensor?

[Chris Kennedy]

Downscaling to 4K for eliminating noise = ISO 16000 noise free?

:violent5:


To be honest, I don't know too much about downscaling to get higher ISO. Lately I've been doing more editing than shooting :emote_headwall: but wanted to do test this for a long time now, have to pay for those bills...

Downscaling down to 4k to make it ISO 16000 not too sure; but noise free though, there will still be some sort of noise. Nowhere as noticeable at least.

[Tim Hole]

In a sense of a digital matte painting/backdrop it makes sense. There was a shot in Harry Potter that was a wide of the landscape and a building. The camera needed to zoom into a lit window. The Matte Painting was done at 20K. There wasn't any movement in the background but you get where I am going.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I think a lot of people underestimate the applications for 28K and the EPIC 617. In addition to that, it's not just about resolution. The resolution and panoramic format will be beneficial to FX work as Tim mentions, but it will also be an incredible tool for large format digital signage, advertising, etc..

Super-sampling 28K down to 4K or whatnot doesn't boost dynamic range or sensitivity. However, it does combat noise. One of the best methods of mitigating noise is to increase resolution. So 28K boiled down to 4K should result in some very clean looking images. However, the frame size and perspective achieved with the 617 format is vastly different than shooting 4K in S35 format. Keep in mind that while a 100mm lens is considered to be a long focal length when used on S35, it's a very wide focal length when used on a 6x17 sensor. 6x17 is roughly 2.5X the size of 15/70 IMAX!

[I Bloom]

Let's just go out on a limb for a minute, and say that the reason Imax has never become mainstream is not because people don't want that experience. It's because it's too expensive to create and deliver the product.

The Epic 617 will create a revolution in large format filmaking, the likes of which we have never imagined. Not to mention that the camera may also allow us to do 3D without a large and complicated rig by allowing us to projecting two images on the same sensor.

Like the Phantom, no other camera manufacturer will understand the potential of the market until suddenly this system moves from background to mainstream. And Jim breaks off another cigar....

IBloom

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

To be honest, I don't know too much about downscaling to get higher ISO. Lately I've been doing more editing than shooting :emote_headwall: but wanted to do test this for a long time now, have to pay for those bills...

Downscaling down to 4k to make it ISO 16000 not too sure; but noise free though, there will still be some sort of noise. Nowhere as noticeable at least.

Downscaling reduces noise.

[Isaac Testerman]

If you shot at 28k you could take one shot for your close, mid and wide takes, with more then enough room to play around with especially if your final result only needs to be 4-8k. A lot less shooting and takes if you ask me.

[Tom.Wong]

that's been discussed already. not a good idea to take a massive master wide and start scaling in for all your shots. focus and sharpness will not be the same, neither will your DOF, i mean it's possible if that's all you got, but i don't think cinematographer on this forum would really recommend doing that if at all possible to avoid it.

also back on topic, what is the equivalent resolution size for 65 mm imax? i assume 28k is being developed to match or be a intermediate for imax resolutions... and if it's beyond imax then the downsample to that would give you the best looking imax you have ever seen...

[Tim Hole]

also back on topic, what is the equivalent resolution size for 65 mm imax? i assume 28k is being developed to match or be a intermediate for imax resolutions... and if it's beyond imax then the downsample to that would give you the best looking imax you have ever seen...

Is 28K a resultant size for a variety of reasons or a desired format size for practical reasons? Is it for lenses or for celluloid equivalency...

[Craig Ryan]

Is 28K a resultant size for a variety of reasons or a desired format size for practical reasons? Is it for lenses or for celluloid equivalency...

My guess is that 28k is the result of matching the 617 format size with the pixel size of Monstro technology, if that makes sense. Also, its basically a 3:1 aspect ratio of the 9k sensor. So it would be a clear choice for 3D IMAX without needing 2 cameras, as Ian pointed out.

I assume that the 28k (9.3 vertical res) is going to fully resolve at 24k by 8k. For presentation, the option we already have available today is three 4k projectors; this would mean the 3:1 aspect ratio of the footage would need to be cropped down to fit the 5.3:1 aspect of the three 16:9 4k projectors. It would downsample to a tact sharp image that literally pans around the theater.

[Iannis Holwech]

Discussing this, I think people should remember that Epic 617 is a panoramic format with a aspect ratio of 3:1 ~ 28000x9334 - so for Imax which is projected "square" at 1:44:1 ~ 13440x9334 uses less than half the horizontal resolution of Epic 617. The Epic 645~9334x7000 would be a more practical camera for Imax, but a mix would be good too.

The problem is to get the resolution back onto the screen before we have digital projectors with the equivalent resolution, or at least 8K.

In theory you can use six 4K projectors with edge blending and get 12000x4000 projected on a curved screen, which would be nice for a huge panoramic exhibition project, but not for a feature/Imax documentary.

The 617 down-sampled would be very sharp and impressive for the wide landscape shots in "your next" "epic" 2:40:1 movie project, like an epic western, sword&sandals,"sound of music" type of feature.:thumbup1:

Epic 617
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/8541/x61711.jpg

Seitz 617
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1773/seitz6x17photographersm.jpg

Seitz Links>
Seitz Phototechnik AG (http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm)
Luminous Landscape; The Seitz 6x17 Digital Panoramic Camera. (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/seitz-d3.shtml)
There are of course many other 617 cameras.

Link> Gigapixel Project (http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm)
Just imagine when these panoramic stills "comes alive" with Epic 617.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It'll be great for matte paints as tim noted. It would be great for other background plates. Especially spherical plates which need to be really high resolution since you're often only using a small slice at any given frame.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Also there was a shoot here in Seattle a month or two ago that employed something like 8 RED cameras to get one wide shot. Rent a 6x17 and they probably could have done it in one go.