Epic X, Epic FF35 and IMAX...

[Tom Lowe]

A custom, proprietary 6K projection system for their large screens would be ideal, in fact. That gives a perfect downsample from a 9K digital camera like Jim is building, for example.

Even the 6K 3:2 FF35 Epic, with properly exposed shots, brought through their DMR, would work.

 

[Michael Hastings]

The quality HAS to be dramatically better than a standard movie theater experience or what's the point?

To me this is the point - not "let's see what we can get away with"

If 2K digital is pretty close because of the vagaries of film printing and such, well then let's just see how cool 4k or 8K digital could be if it is remotely reasonable.

Film IMAX has been around for 40 years, would it be so horrible if IMAX superduperdigital got even better?

 

[Phil Holland]

I've been following this thread and thought I'd add to the conversation.

I'm very interested in the FF35 Epic.
Mostly due to a great deal of lens options and depth of field advantages.

In terms of resolution?

I view FF35 like shooting VistaVision really. Really well shot and scanned 15 perf 65mm is likely still going to have it's advantages in terms of resolution, but I wouldn't be surprised with the right glass that FF35 Epic give it a run for it's money.

That said, we shot the Yogi tests with a Red One about a year ago and I took the time to do some dangerous comparisons between Super35mm scanned on our NorthLight @ 6k. The results are promising for whatever FF35 Epic has in store.

All of that said. Most features shot today are still worked on in the 2k and occasionally 4k mentality.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I view FF35 like shooting VistaVision really. Really well shot and scanned 15 perf 65mm is likely still going to have it's advantages in terms of resolution, but I wouldn't be surprised with the right glass that FF35 Epic give it a run for it's money.

That's what I'm talking about, Phil.

I honestly believe that people are going to be very surprised when they see how well 6K FF35 footage might hold up on IMAX screens.

Epic FF35 is the camera I plan to buy for myself. It's my dream camera.

 

[Phil Holland]

I'm on the same page. I think the Epic FF35 is going to be the camera for me as well.

We've been using the Red One here and there, but primarily the features I work on are still shot on film. But, I'm an advocate of Red and promote the usage of them when possible. Still a lot of people I run into are just really in the dark about processing the material off the camera, which generates a great deal of fear.

But time are changing. And I think that's a good thing in terms of movie the industry forward.

 

[Jon E. Allen]

FF35 senor size would be like vistavision Not 15/70 Imax

 

[Jannard]

FF35 senor size would be like vistavision Not 15/70 Imax

Digital typically has more resolution and is cleaner than film given the same image size (S35 or FF35). It would not surprise me that Monstro FF35 would look as good or better than 70mm film. In fact, I would bet on it.

Jim

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If we take Red's own figure of 3.2K measurable resolution for Super-35, then VistaVision, being 1.5X wider would measure at 4.8K and 5-perf 65mm, being 2X wider, would measure at 6.4K.

But VistaVision and 65mm are considered comparable in quality, just that 65mm is better shaped for 2.40 movies, whereas VistaVision being taller but less wide is better suited for 1.85 movies if max resolution is the goal. So certainly the 6K RAW Monstro sensor will deliver what could be labeled "70mm quality".

But the 15-perf IMAX negative is 2.9X wider than Super-35 so should measure at 9.28K if you take the 3.2K figure for Super-35 that Red uses. Of course, that's not factoring in the MTF of lenses made for larger cameras.

However, grain size being one of the telltale signs of the size of the original negative will mean that 6K Monstro footage would transfer nicely to an IMAX print with decent sharpness and quality. Of course, it would be even better for Monstro if we had 6K digital projection someday for IMAX theaters.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Digital typically has more resolution and is cleaner than film given the same image size (S35 or FF35). It would not surprise me that Monstro FF35 would look as good or better than 70mm film. In fact, I would bet on it.

Jim

Amen. My mind actually blew (grey matter all over my desk) when somebody posted a chart that claimed S35 film was 12mp.

These terrified dinosaurs will say anything to stop people switching to digital.

I've had a DSLR that outresolved my FF35 film SLR for probably 5 years, it's only in the last 18mos that I've stopped hearing "I hear good old film is still better quality than your fancy digital camera" and "I won't work with digital, the quality isn't there."

If they stopped spending so much money on anti-digital marketing they could probably develop their OWN digital!

 

[Tom Lowe]

Glad to see this idea of using FF35 for IMAX acquisition picking up some steam. As people begin to glimpse Epic X's 5.1K or 5.2K MX results, this idea will seem even more viable.

 

[Michael McVicar]

FF35 and anamorphic, aah yes

 

[Luis Otero]

Digital typically has more resolution and is cleaner than film given the same image size (S35 or FF35). It would not surprise me that Monstro FF35 would look as good or better than 70mm film. In fact, I would bet on it.

Jim

Jim,

If I don't recall it wrong, I remember that I read that PJ told you that he was thinking that R1 can be used for IMAX due to how clean the image was coming from the R3Ds.

Maybe I was hallucinating, but I bet I saw it posted somewhere here. :w00t:

 

[Craig Ryan]

I agree, Tom. One thing to keep in mind is that average Joe/Jane doesn't know, and sadly in most cases could care less, what a real IMAX image should look like.

I remember hearing a distinct GASP every time the first shot of The Dark Knight came on in IMAX - people just weren't expecting real IMAX; they've been getting 35mm blowups, and they've been satisfied with that. So when the real thing comes around, it's literally breathtaking.


So with that in mind, I think as long as we're in the ballpark of 4-6k fully resolved, we're good for IMAX. Now, don't get me wrong, it sure isn't a replacement for real IMAX resolution which my guess would be somewhere in the 10k arena, but I think it would suffice. This is why I personally can't wait for the big boy Monstro sensors...the 9k and 28k...and how massive the lenses are going to be.

 

[Craig Ryan]

Jim,

If I don't recall it wrong, I remember that I read that PJ told you that he was thinking that R1 can be used for IMAX due to how clean the image was coming from the R3Ds.

Maybe I was hallucinating, but I bet I saw it posted somewhere here. :w00t:

Actually I rememebr the quote was that he thought RED 2k would be great for 35, and the 4k would be great for 70mm.

 

[Luis Otero]

Craig,

That was the quote! Now I remember... :thumbup:

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Don't confuse ordinary 5-perf 70mm with 15-perf 70mm IMAX.

2K mode on the Red One is not really adequate for a good 35mm transfer except for select slo-mo shots, you really need to shoot 3K and 4K when possible.

Sure, 4K Red One footage would blow-up nicely to 70mm and IMAX due to the lack of grain... but that doesn't mean it's IMAX quality, there's a big difference between making something acceptable for IMAX presentation (like a lot of 35mm movies that have gone through the DMR process) and something that actually matches the resolution of a 15-perf 65mm negative.

As I point out, it's basic real estate. To repeat:

If we take Red's own figure of 3.2K measurable resolution for Super-35, then VistaVision, being 1.5X wider would measure at 4.8K and 5-perf 65mm, being 2X wider, would measure at 6.4K.

But the 15-perf IMAX negative is 2.9X wider than Super-35 so should measure at 9.28K if you take the 3.2K figure for Super-35 that Red uses.

The 4K Red One frame measures out at around 3.5K, but it has the lack of grain of larger negative formats, which allows a greater degree of enlargement, but that doesn't get around its basic resolution limit in terms of detail in the frame. 5-perf 65mm is twice as wide as 35mm, so it has twice the horizontal resolution. Even if you say that 35mm is only 3K, then 5-perf 65mm has to be 6K if it uses a lens of comparable sharpness. The Red One image is not going to resolve 6K.

But sure, it would look nice in a 70mm print. So does well-shot 35mm anamorphic photography. In fact, I saw a gorgeous 70mm print of "Howard's End" that was made directly off of the original Super-35 negative straight to 70mm print stock using an optical printer. But it helped that most of the movie was shot on slow-speed film stock. Let's face it, it one the advantages of 70mm prints is not just the resolution, but that the print isn't being as enlarged as much to fill the screen compared to a 35mm print.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

... Even if you say that 35mm is only 3K, then 5-perf 65mm has to be 6K if it uses a lens of comparable sharpness. The Red One image is not going to resolve 6K...

I think your assumption that 15-perf 70mm format lenses resolve the same or similar detail (lp/mm) as good 35mm lenses on the negative is a bit optimistic.

Firstly, large format optics is exponentially harder to grind to the same absolute tolerances as smaller format. I'm not aware of large format lenses maintaining the same tollerances and optical quality of high-end S35 lenses.

Secondly, large format lenses are usually used at f/8 ...f/32 and therefore are diffraction limited at the film grain size (or pixel size, if you like).

I think the truth is, as usual, "somewhere in between". Your points are valid, but not to the extend that you indicated. The resolution does not scale in linear manner when it comes to format size. But, it does scale.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Exactly, Pawel. The lenses come into play at some point. Not to mention that digital acquisition is 100% 1010010101101 clean data from the moment you shoot it till the moment it is projected. There is no loss through any optical or printing processes.

6K RAW 3:2 with Monstro will be able to hold its own on big IMAX screens, IMO, assuming there are good projectors for 3:2 4K RGB projection?

 

[Vance Colvig]

At the rate that technology is moving, my best guess is that film projection will be a very rare experience in 5 years due to cost, even Imax. However, I could be wrong (as usual, just ask my wife).