4:3 Epic

[Pawel Achtel]

LOL...Dude, what are you talking about! That IMAX neg is almost the size of a freekin business card. What are you saying, that they are using the bottoms of coke bottles as lenses? Because unless they are, I don't see how they would be losing anywhere near that kind of resolution. I don't even think they do DIs on 15-perf IMAX pictures.

They do, and it is 4k. So, this is the ceiling. Take into account the prints, projector and screen and 3k looks like practical limit for 70mm originated material.

However, in many cases, like Wild Ocean 3D, all underwater sequences were shot with Fujinon HA10X5B-W50 HD Cine Style zoom lenses using HDCAM cameras. The resolution would be roughly 1.5k, in the best case scenario. But, due to compromises in underwater optics, the end result was not better than ~1k. Still, it looked quite good. You'd be surprised how good 1k or 2k can look like.

The point is that the size of the IMAX neg does not matter! This is not the weakest link. And, it is the weakest link that limits the final quality. The final MTF is a multiplication of all of the elements in the entire production and post production path.

OK, back into hiding in my bullet-proof bunker LOL

 

[Harrison Diamond]

Pawel, are you certain that the IMAX film segments themselves are DMRed at 4K? They scan it at 5.6 or 8K, last time I checked, while the DMR is done at 4K for 35mm blow-up.

TDK, according to IMDB, used Hasselblad lenses on the IMAX cameras, and Hassy feels confident with their lenses on a Fifty megapixel still camera. With a 48mmx36mm sensor. The IMAX negative is just shy of 70x49mm.

On a related note, if we scale the current 4.5K Mysterium sensor from the RED One at 4520px across with a 24.4mm width (2.40:1 max and 16:9/2:1 look-around width, I believe?) to the same width as the IMAX negative, we end up at a little shy of 13K. Allow for the 72 or whatever percentage effective resolution after debayering, and you end up pretty darn near 10K.

Worst case, you can always design new lenses. And sensors get better, and computers get faster, and electronics get smaller. Without the whole film transport mechanism, I think an IMAX digital can get small and light enough (behind the lens/sensor anyways) to really make it more versatile, though the data rates and costs would undoubtedly make it remain somewhat limited in its adoption in the long run.

I for one saw some things in TDK in IMAX that would provide an incentive to use that format for artistic reasons, just like I use my "full frame" 35mm digital still camera sometimes over my '1.5 crop' digital still camera when I need a particular look.

Not to mention I feel that making this format more feasible and widespread could have much broader implications for certain segments of the cinema industry.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Pawel, are you certain that the IMAX film segments themselves are DMRed at 4K?

Yes.

Worst case, you can always design new lenses...

I have been waiting for my "off the shelf" MP 14mm for 6 months. Who and when do you think can design and produce those new lenses?

Hassy lenses are not strictly cine lenses and there is no evidence that they have MTF better than MPs. They are made by Zeiss too, so I would expect that, in line with their pricing, you get what you pay for.

The selection of Hassy lenses is poor.

The fastest Hassy lenses are f/3.5 (with one exception being f/2.8 for the 80mm) and mostly f/4. They let about 1/10th (or over 3 stops less) of the light that MPs do. If you want shallow DOF, just use MPs open wide on S35mm sensor and it will look just like IMAX.

In practical terms you are not gaining anything by using 70mm sensor. There are however substantial costs and compromises in doing so.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Where are you getting that IMAX films do 4K DIs??? That's completely silly. Why would you spend mountains of money and drag around a huge 15-perf 65mm camera and then bottleneck yourself at 35mm resolution?

It's all done optically when you are talking about a real 15-perf IMAX film, like EVEREST.

 

[Craig Ryan]

Pawel, you make some great points from an engineering POV.

However, you clearly have not seen TDK in IMAX yet. Go now.

The DIs were NOT done at 4k for the IMAX material. I've read from various articles including the AC one, that the prints were done at 5.6k (for who knows what reason..) and 8k.

You are clearly more knowledgeable than me with the technicalities of optics, but I ask you this, why would you ever say no to more? All we are wishing for is a more economic version of the most impressive film format in history. 4k does NOT hold up to IMAX, if you saw the TDK in IMAX and compare the 4k 35mm stuff to IMAX sequences you'll see a HUGE difference in the resolving power/clarity/detail/shapness.

Also you mentioned earlier about 35mm becoming obsolete if a larger format came out. No one has suggested that Epic or the RED ONE be changed into a format beyond the scope of 35mm...its all just speculation of a dream digital IMAX camera that isn't limited by 35mm. In which case, 35mm stuff would still have its firm place in the industry. Time and place for everything. That's all.

And, what Tom said

 

[David Mullen ASC]

All I'm suggesting is that the IMAX experience has to be radically better than normal feature filmmaking, and if normal digital filmmaking is going to be 4K in the future, then digital IMAX origination can't be 4K as well, it has to be twice as good or else what's the point, as an audience member, of spending more money to see the same picture quality as regular digital movies are delivering?

And I don't personally believe that current 4K Bayer digital cameras on the market (RED and Dalsa) are already creating IMAX levels of resolution. I've seen RED footage digitally projected in 4K and while it had a certain visual resemblence to a clean 5-perf 70mm picture in terms of grainlessness, it did not contain IMAX-level of detail. Speaking as an avid IMAX viewer ever since I saw "To Fly" in 1977...

I've seen IMAX tests of HD footage transferred to 15-perf 65mm and projected, and it does not hold up, or at least, it doesn't look as good as 15-perf 65mm material does. But at least when you are talking about 3D underwater footage, HD works fine in IMAX. You don't have a lot of wide day exterior shots with underwater footage, and having two images overlaid on each eyeball, so to speak, makes you feel like there is more detail, partly because you are noticing the 3D effect more. And most of the spectacular 3D underwater shots involve things close-up to the lens where the resolution of HD seems sufficient.

But if you look at 2D footage transferred from HD to IMAX, you can tell that there is a lack of resolution on the IMAX screen. One test I saw compared F900 HD footage to the ultra-HD footage from the Olympus 4-CCD camera (nearly 4K), both transferred to IMAX, and the F900 footage reminded me of 16mm on the giant IMAX screen. There were so many HDCAM and CCD artifacts, HD lens artifacts, and noise and compression artifacts visible at that size. And it was quite soft.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

All I'm suggesting is that the IMAX experience has to be radically better than normal feature filmmaking, and if normal digital filmmaking is going to be 4K in the future, then digital IMAX origination can't be 4K as well, it has to be twice as good or else what's the point, as an audience member, of spending more money to see the same picture quality as regular digital movies are delivering?

And I don't personally believe that current 4K Bayer digital cameras on the market (RED and Dalsa) are already creating IMAX levels of resolution. I've seen RED footage digitally projected in 4K and while it had a certain visual resemblence to a clean 5-perf 70mm picture in terms of grainlessness, it did not contain IMAX-level of detail. Speaking as an avid IMAX viewer ever since I saw "To Fly" in 1977...

I've seen IMAX tests of HD footage transferred to 15-perf 65mm and projected, and it does not hold up, or at least, it doesn't look as good as 15-perf 65mm material does. But at least when you are talking about 3D underwater footage, HD works fine in IMAX. You don't have a lot of wide day exterior shots with underwater footage, and having two images overlaid on each eyeball, so to speak, makes you feel like there is more detail, partly because you are noticing the 3D effect more. And most of the spectacular 3D underwater shots involve things close-up to the lens where the resolution of HD seems sufficient.

But if you look at 2D footage transferred from HD to IMAX, you can tell that there is a lack of resolution on the IMAX screen. One test I saw compared F900 HD footage to the ultra-HD footage from the Olympus 4-CCD camera (nearly 4K), both transferred to IMAX, and the F900 footage reminded me of 16mm on the giant IMAX screen. There were so many HDCAM and CCD artifacts, HD lens artifacts, and noise and compression artifacts visible at that size. And it was quite soft.

David, I largely agree about HD to IMAX comments, but perhaps not as much about 4k to IMAX. I think it looks stunning as long as other components are of matching quality and bandwidth.

In relation to 8k, 10k or 20k...the extra resolution does not come for free. It costs additional and substantial bandwidth. If I can afford the additional bandwidth due to technological and innovative advancements, I would like it where I can see the most benefit. Where I can see the most benefit (to Red One), is not the extra resolution. It is dynamic range and frame rates. Once we are cranking 14-16 bit (with 13-15 stops) Raw with low compression at 60-120 fps, OK, I take your points as worthwhile improvements as long as you can get glass to match, power to process, displays to display, etc... Also, the only point I would agree on would be to increase the sensor resolution rather than physical size. I can't see any rationale to increase the sensor size. It is not analogue medium and the MTF of the sensor does not depend on its size. It depends on quantity and quality of the photo sites. And, because I do not want the camera to be more sensitive than it is (due to the need of heavy ND filtering), the sensor size should remain as it is: S35 - no more, no less.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

But if you look at 2D footage transferred from HD to IMAX, you can tell that there is a lack of resolution on the IMAX screen. One test I saw compared F900 HD footage to the ultra-HD footage from the Olympus 4-CCD camera (nearly 4K), both transferred to IMAX, and the F900 footage reminded me of 16mm on the giant IMAX screen. There were so many HDCAM and CCD artifacts, HD lens artifacts, and noise and compression artifacts visible at that size. And it was quite soft.

I saw superman returns on imax and I thought it looked awesome, though there is quite a difference between f900 footage and genesis footage I think.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

4k does NOT hold up to IMAX, if you saw the TDK in IMAX and compare the 4k 35mm stuff to IMAX sequences you'll see a HUGE difference in the resolving power/clarity/detail/shapness.

It is not 4k that does not hold up, it is the 35mm film :devil:

 

[Robert Sanders]

The big question is "who" is Epic being built for? It is my opinion that RED is responding to the very high-end Hollywood market. It looks like it was designed to address all of the concerns from mainstream cinematographers. Basically, a no-holds-barred version of the REDONE.

Now, what do today's cinematographer's want? They want to know that they have the option to use any PL mount lenses available. And that list includes anamorphic photography. I understand that many simply don't get "why" someone would opt for a lens format when there's a "simpler solution" like cropping. It's a credible argument, no doubt. But the argument chooses to ignore the realities of mainstream Hollywood cinematography -- cinematographers will NOT be told that anamorphic is "old school" and no longer needed. They'll laugh you off the stage.

So, how do we accommodate anamorphic photography in a simple, straight-forward way. Basically, how do we continue to shoot anamorphic like we do on 35mm, only with a 4K digital camera?

That's the question.

To ignore it or argue against is not smart. Just my opinion.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I wish the red team would give us some hints regarding their thoughts on 4:3.

 

[Alex G. Cohn]

Basically, how do we continue to shoot anamorphic like we do on 35mm, only with a 4K digital camera?

But are people "really" shooting anamorphic these days? It seems like virtually every single 2.35:1 film is actually being shot on S35, even the major blockbusters. The real anamorphic shows are coming few and far between.

 

[Robert Sanders]

These are the ones that come off the top of my head (I'll need to be checked). But I'm pretty passionate about anamorphic cinematography and I follow who's shooting what and why...

The Dark Knight - Anamorphic
Batman Begins - Anamorphic
The Incredible Hulk - Anamorphic
Indiana Jones - Anamorphic
Transformers - Anamorphic
Transformers 2 - Anamorphic
There Will Be Blood - Anamorphic
Mamma Mia! - Anamorphic
I Am Legend - Anamorphic
The Island - Anamorphic
The Brave One - Anamorphic
Rush Hour (all 3) - Anamorphic
Michael Clayton - Anamorphic
Shooter - Anamorphic
The Number 23 - Anamorphic

And there's no doubt that there are probably 3 Super35 films for every one anamorphic film. But the format is FAR from dead or dying out anytime soon. You just can't duplicate that "look". Even if someone produced a set of 1.34x anamorphic lenses for 16x9 sensors, you'd lose most of the qualities that create that "look" since they're inherently part of the 2x squeeze.

 

[Alex G. Cohn]

These are the ones that come off the top of my head (I'll need to be checked). But I'm pretty passionate about anamorphic cinematography and I follow who's shooting what and why...

The Dark Knight - Anamorphic
Batman Begins - Anamorphic
The Incredible Hulk - Anamorphic
Indiana Jones - Anamorphic
Transformers - Anamorphic
Transformers 2 - Anamorphic
There Will Be Blood - Anamorphic
Mamma Mia! - Anamorphic
I Am Legend - Anamorphic
The Island - Anamorphic
The Brave One - Anamorphic
Rush Hour (all 3) - Anamorphic
Michael Clayton - Anamorphic
Shooter - Anamorphic
The Number 23 - Anamorphic

And there's no doubt that there are probably 3 Super35 films for every one anamorphic film. But the format is FAR from dead or dying out anytime soon. You just can't duplicate that "look". Even if someone produced a set of 1.34x anamorphic lenses for 16x9 sensors, you'd lose most of the qualities that create that "look" since they're inherently part of the 2x squeeze.

And I would love to see modern films matching the 65mm, 2.20:1 grandeur of Lawrence of Arabia, but I know that most studios are cheapskates.

But then I'm actually not that big a fan of 2.35:1, whether that's anamorphic or S35. I much prefer 1.85:1, as I feel that it allows for more vertical action, and makes people larger on the screen.

 

[Robert Sanders]

Yup. I find beauty in both 1.85 and 1.78 aspect ratios as well.

I've just never shaken my affinity for anamorphic lenses. I became obsessed with how they worked and how they were built when I was in film school. I tracked down a rare set of 16mm anamorphic lenses built for making educational films. It was kinda cool being the only anamorphic S16 project on campus.

 

[Joseph Ward]

Would 4:3 anamorphic fit onto VistaVision? Get biggest and let everything else be worked on it. It looks good going from big to small, than small to big.

 

[M Most]

And I would love to see modern films matching the 65mm, 2.20:1 grandeur of Lawrence of Arabia, but I know that most studios are cheapskates.

I would hardly call spending over $50 million per movie being "cheapskates."

Everything is relative. "The Dark Knight" requested and was granted the use of Imax as a shooting format for at least a few weeks of production. What a production chooses to spend their budget on is usually their choice. The studio approves a budget, and the money is spent on whatever is deemed to be the best use of it. Sometimes that's above the line talent. Sometimes it's visual effects. Sometimes it's sets or locations. And sometimes it's on the technical details. But in almost no case does a bigger piece of negative in itself make for a better movie.

 

[Craig Ryan]

But in almost no case does a bigger piece of negative in itself make for a better movie.

Maybe not 0overall, but it definitely has a huge impact on the experience of the film. No one is really arguing that a bigger format is going to inherently make a movie better. However, having the option to a large format definitely can change the entire feel of the movie. Imagine 2001 A Space Odyssey shot on 16mm...thats my point.

 

[Alex G. Cohn]

I would hardly call spending over $50 million per movie being "cheapskates."

Everything is relative. "The Dark Knight" requested and was granted the use of Imax as a shooting format for at least a few weeks of production. What a production chooses to spend their budget on is usually their choice. The studio approves a budget, and the money is spent on whatever is deemed to be the best use of it. Sometimes that's above the line talent. Sometimes it's visual effects. Sometimes it's sets or locations. And sometimes it's on the technical details. But in almost no case does a bigger piece of negative in itself make for a better movie.

They don't care about 65mm film, because the screens themselves are nowhere near the size they once were. But they are screwing themselves over though, because they have reduced the theatrical experience to the point where it is actually less than that of sitting at home and watching the DVD.

 

[Alex G. Cohn]

Yup. I find beauty in both 1.85 and 1.78 aspect ratios as well.

I've just never shaken my affinity for anamorphic lenses. I became obsessed with how they worked and how they were built when I was in film school. I tracked down a rare set of 16mm anamorphic lenses built for making educational films. It was kinda cool being the only anamorphic S16 project on campus.

1.78 is great on a flat-screen TV, but in theaters it almost looks like 4:3.