Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

A Rare Tour of IMAX Cameras.

I

Iannis Holwech

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Thought this might be of interest for some.

Mark Wilson
There are 26 IMAX film cameras in the world today. At IMAX HQ, I got to play with 4 of them (and take plenty of photographs for you).

http://gizmodo.com/5271638/a-rare-tour-of-imax-cameras
Click to expand...

I have seen the IMAX resolution numbers thrown around at 18K. But other places, and in this blog it seems more like in the 8 - 9K ballpark.

With an Epic 645, and the coming JVC 8K or E&S 8K laserprojectors (if they give enough lumens) should it not be possible for IMAX to go all digital without compromise too much on image quality?



ps; something I found looking for something else; Delivering 8K VFX Shots for The Dark Knight.
 
That was a great article jus based on seeing how massive and hulking these cameras are. I cant, for the life of me, imagine why people would continue to use these cameras once the 645 and the 617 come out due to cost, weight and noise.
Do Imax have their own production arm? There are obviously lots of films made specifically for Imax theatres but does the company actually fund/co-produce them?
 
The Epic 9K camera is more than enough resolution for IMAX screens! For Batman, they did 8K scans of 15-perf IMAX for the IMAX FX shots. All this talk of 18K is nonsense, IMO. That's like the guys at c.com who claim S35 film = 8K.
 
But debate will continue with Imax and people with the same viewpoint as the more...reactionary members on c.com proliferating this whole 18K, grain is not pixels, emulsion, debayer resolution-this etc. etc. etc. talk. 28K gives enough headroom on all fronts to shut them up.
 
I think the ideal situation would be 8K IMAX display acquired on a 10K camera. But 9K will probably do.

I always wonder whether Jim has been in talks with IMAX about producing a Red IMAX cam. But then again, the current management at IMAX is so out-to-lunch they would probably blow Jim off.
 
I think I asked Jim once, early on, whether he had been talking to IMAX and he said no. I'd be curious to learn if that has changed? Obviously the IMAX folks by now are well aware of what Big Jim is cookin'.
 
Tom said:
The Epic 9K camera is more than enough resolution for IMAX screens! For Batman, they did 8K scans of 15-perf IMAX for the IMAX FX shots. All this talk of 18K is nonsense, IMO. That's like the guys at c.com who claim S35 film = 8K.
Click to expand...

Those c.com guys like to spin all kinds of fairy tales.
 
Eren Ozkural said:
How much reluctance can we expect from the Imax top brass?
Click to expand...

I don't know. They don't seem like the brightest bunch. They are currently engaged in degrading and debasing their own good name with these phony "IMAX Lite" theaters. I think they got a big infusion of investment cash about a year ago ($200 million?) and are trying to make themselves look like they are actually doing something.

They would be much better off, IMHO, investing that cash in building kickass 10K cameras and 8K projectors, and shooting more films that people want to see on real IMAX screens.
 
I found some more on the IMAX resolution in a blog from 2005 where some guy got what is supposedly an answer from Sr. Vice President, Technology at IMAX.
Dear Tristan,

Thank you so much for your interest in IMAX. Hopefully the following will answer your question.

The smallest resolve power of neg film is about 6 microns. As a result, the limiting resolution on a 35mm negative frame is around 3700×2700 pixels. This means a maximum of 2000 lines of vertical resolution for an image with a 1.85 aspect ratio and even less for a 2.35:1 aspect ratio (1570 lines).

The resolution on a 35mm release print is much lower due to MTF generation loss in the film process. A recent paper from SMPTE journal reported that the real resolution that audience can discern in a high-quality 35mm cinema is about 1600 horizontal pixels, which translates to about 850 lines for 1:85 and less than 700 lines for 2.35. Most 35mm cinemas fair even worse than those numbers.

Similarly, an IMAX 15/70 frame has a limiting resolution of close to 12,000 horizontal pixels. For an aspect ratio of 1.36:1, there are about 8700 lines of vertical resolution on each 15/70 negative frame. Because the release print for a typical IMAX documentary is printed directly from the negative, the geneartion MTF loss will be reduced. It is estimated that audience can discern no less than 4500 lines of vertical resolution from a good IMAX release print. So as you can see there exists quite a difference between the image quality of an IMAX image vs that of a 35mm image.

Best Regards,

Brian Bonnick
_________________________________________
Brian Bonnick, P.Eng.
Sr. Vice President, Technology
http://www.tristanpipo.com/2005/03/18/last-update-was-sunday/
Click to expand...

Here he starts out with 12000 x 8700 (on the negativ?) but ends up with half the resolution at 4500 vertical, which giving IMAX some "leeway" would give about 9000x4500 'ish or maybe 6000x4500 would be more correct thinking of the AR of IMAX??

Very different from 18K.

Another link; How Regular Movies Become "IMAX" Films
 
Tom said:
I don't know. They don't seem like the brightest bunch. They are currently engaged in degrading and debasing their own good name with these phony "IMAX Lite" theaters.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember reading Aziz Ansari's rant...funny guy. The main Imax I go to over here is the BFI London Imax by the Thames in London. I'm not sure if it's THE biggest but theres a marked difference between it and the usual 2/4k digi cine screens regarding size. Shame about the brand name dilution. I love the Imax documentaries and features that utilise the format (not a big fan of DMR'ing blockbusters to make an extra buck or two-a practice that will get more common after TDK imho)
 
Seriously, with the 945 brain you'll be able to cradle a 9k image in your lap if you want to, and all without the noise.

Once the large format brains are released...I think we'll be seeing more and more blockbusters shot this way. I HOPE anyway....
 
Tom said:
The Epic 9K camera is more than enough resolution for IMAX screens! For Batman, they did 8K scans of 15-perf IMAX for the IMAX FX shots. All this talk of 18K is nonsense, IMO. That's like the guys at c.com who claim S35 film = 8K.
Click to expand...

In their defense they weren't claiming 4,000 lines of resolveable detail. I readm any of these discussions and even chimed in myself. The argument was that with CURRENT SCANNING TECH the image looks BETTER. Whether or not that's true is somewhat subjective. But they felt that resolving grain more accurately gave a better image.

Also note that like RED scanning at 8k and downsampling to a 2k project argueably creates a better image.

After all a film scanner is little more than a camera sensor. Supersampling does matter.

----

Also in regards to IMAX Lite I think they are still offering a superior experience to average cinema. Just like a THX certified cinema is usually superior to your average run of the mill multiplex.

If they have more subwoofers. Less seats. Closer screens. Steeper stadium seating and their dual-2k projectors then they're still offering a premium option. BMW might offer 200k cars, but they also offer luxurious $50k cars. Premium is premium even if it isn't the very top of the line.

IMAX's profits are through the roof since offering normal films. I do see them with a little more success being able to do what you suggest: paying people to shoot and post at a higher resolution. After all if you start offering films with dual 4k projectors you're going to want some material to show. They just don't have enough money to actually incetivize that yet. With inexpensive RED 8k cameras though it might finally be inexpensive enough to come before a producer and say. "Look we'll give you an extra $2m if you shoot and post this film at 4k or 8k instead of film and 2k.

Producers are correct to say "look it just isn't worth the extra money to post this thing in anything above the best projection systems." The extra cost is coming down and IMAX is getting richer. I think we'll hit a sweet spot where they can start to make some demands and requests. Especially if they even instead of paying them off to post at a higher res offer them a cut of any film which offers a IMAX-HD experience.

And who do you trust to roll out the best-latest-top-of-the-line-projectors? The company which charges $10 a ticket? Or the one which charges $15 and has to defend their premium? I put my money on IMAX.
 
Tom said:
The Epic 9K camera is more than enough resolution for IMAX screens! For Batman, they did 8K scans of 15-perf IMAX for the IMAX FX shots. All this talk of 18K is nonsense, IMO. That's like the guys at c.com who claim S35 film = 8K.
Click to expand...

Actually, from talking with FilmLight folks, my understanding, that IMAX uses the NorthLight scanner, specifically built for IMAX. It's the only one in existence in the world capable of handling the IMAX format. NorthLight is capable of only 6K scans. That's the resolution, that just some of Batman was scanned for VFX. Majority actually was done in 4k for lack of time.
Couple of years ago, I actually had a chance to play with some other IMAX images, that were scanned at 6k on the NorthLight and down converted to 4k in LA office of FilmLight on the Baselight 8 with the Sony 4K projector. It was by far the most amazing experience. It wasn't just the resolution, even at 4K, but the saturation was vibrant and super real. Actually it felt more real, than being real. Simply stunning.
 
I remember reading that the IMAX VFX were done at 8K. I'm not sure what scanner they used. Five-perf 65mm "Baraka" frames were scanned at 8K recently, though judging by the Bluray, that might have been overkill.
 
Tom...

I found two different BR Barakas on Amazon.

One named Remastered that only sellers (not Amazon) are selling it for 50 bucks and a regular BR Baraka for 15 bucks that Amazon is selling.

I'm confused now... Which version is better? Same version with different names and boxes?
 
Tom said:
I remember reading that the IMAX VFX were done at 8K. I'm not sure what scanner they used. Five-perf 65mm "Baraka" frames were scanned at 8K recently, though judging by the Bluray, that might have been overkill.
Click to expand...

5 perf isn't 15 perf of true IMAX
 
Interesting to read in the Gizmodo article that there is obviously considerable time & expense to "up-rez" 35mm-captured footage to IMAX - that's what most of the article seems to be about...and it seems quite a chore to do this "up-rezzing" (although they're trying to automate the process as much as possible). However, compared to straight, instant capturing at IMAX-equivalent resolutions on a not-that-far-away Red Epic (645, 617?) without the need for this months-long process, and without IMAX stock costs (let alone even 35mm stock costs)...well the sums just seem to add up to me in Red's favour [biased I know + "the cameras aren't even out yet" blah blah!]

p.s. not that it's relevant to the topic but the only film I've ever fallen asleep to (whilst in a cinema) was an IMAX film...and it was in 3D :beer:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top