I saw Prometheus in a Digital IMAX theater and it was visually impressive! Best looking movie I've seen in a while digital or film.
Some of ya'll are funny, it's like you just go around looking for comments to debate. Didn't I see you in another thread mucking it up just to throw a debate into someones face? oh, you said it wrong, such and such said it was better, such and such said that it eclipsed, such and such said.... You sound just like my kids, I can't believe it, I feel like someone here needs a spanking!! Until you have the "joy" of shooting, and cutting and scanning actual 70mm, instead of rolling digital on EPIC 5k then shut up about all this he said she said crap! Ketch is right, I would'nt touch 70mm with a 10 foot pole either.
As far as underwater photography goes, 5K does match IMAX because you don't need lens ports with the RED - you can just use housings with external optics (e.g. Nikonos lenses). When IMAX cameras - or even 35mm cameras - can use dedicated underwater lenses, then the question becomes more interesting.
If Red themselves agree that Super-35 film, 24mm wide, measures around 3K (just rounding down), and an IMAX negative is 70.41mm wide, that's 2.9X larger... that comes out to a potential resolution of almost 9K for the negative itself, and that's a conservative estimate. Now large-format lenses often have a bit lower MTF (because they can), and of course a contact IMAX print projected probably loses a lot of that, but you have to figure that there is still more than 4K with a decent IMAX presentation. Of course, digital images are very steady and have no grain and thus enlarge well, but I would say that the "look" of Epic or Sony F65 images are more like standard 70mm rather than IMAX. Standard 65mm is 52.48 mm wide, which is 2.2X wider than Super-35, so a measured 3K resolution in 35mm would equal a potential 6.6K in 65mm. Or let's just round down to 6K. Heck, round down to 5K, either way, that's more in the realm of an Epic than IMAX would be.
The real problem is that the IMAX look has been clouded in people's minds by so many other formats being bumped up to IMAX and not enough people are seeing classic 15-perf 65mm IMAX photography since that tends to be reserved for nature docs in science museums, and now some of those are mixing in other formats into the production.
How many people remember when James Cameron started shooting docs on 2/3" Sony HD 1080P cameras and saying that the quality was more like 70mm? I think the lack of grain, which is a telltale indicator of negative size, is part of what drives this tendency for people to describe digital images as being like 70mm or IMAX, because we associate clean images with large film formats.
Last edited by David Mullen ASC; 06-28-2012 at 08:44 PM.
Shooting film is a joy if you love the particular beauty film can bring, which NO digital cam has equaled yet in certain ways. And I'm pretty sure no one cuts film with a razor anymore, the offline is all digital just like with Red.
If you kids sound like me they must be pretty smart. Have they attended Harvard?
Last edited by Rob Ruffo; 06-28-2012 at 09:03 PM.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|