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 :)

If your shooting 28K resolution, then your might as well be shooting in IMAX!

R

Robert McGee

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Points
0
IMAX cameras usually say IMAX on them. But any major corporation with enough ambition can build a 261 Megapixal Sensor. For one thing, 28K doesn't that sound kinda "over the top" for the average filmmaker? It even says that 28K is big enough for IMAX film on your wikipedia articale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDCODE

I hope the Epic 617 comes with the option to downscale video to 4K resolution for conventional release.

I know that If I was going to shoot some big screen epic, I'd want to put it on the IMAX screen. The 617 model sounds like the type of camera one needs if they want that. Cause think of this, an IMAX is as heavy as can be and is said to only hold up to 8 mins. and 30 secs. of 65mm negatives. It's 65mm in the camera, it becomes 70mm when you add the soundtrack to make a film print. I can see this digital format getting somewhere but what it needs is a push, I'd say once you guys have the Epic 617 series ready, before you ship them out you shoot like a say a 10 minute film and show it on an IMAX short film; cause I bet you could shoot anything and it would look amazing at full 28K resolution. It would show cost causes filmmakers that it's worth the price.
 
Isn't sound on a separate reel in Imax? The theater I grew up with certainly used a separate magnetic reel for sound instead of it being on the side of the film.
 
Worth mentioning that the 617 frame is 2.75x larger than the IMAX frame, despite the 3:1 aspect ratio.

In fact, it is the 9K 645 that I will expect to be the IMAX competitor. 617 is simply too much of a monster.
 
From what I understand, 70mm IMAX film is supposed to equal about 9K in digital resolution. So the 645 would be on par with IMAX - the 617 is just in a different league. Although I don't actually know what you could do with that much resolution...
 
So where looking at screens that are bigger then IMAX screens if thing hits the wall? I thought that the DMR process included an 8K scan. But what about say a an 8K or 9K digital projector in an IMAX venue?

I was thinking that earlier because when I saw the wikipedia articale and the IMAX thing that I already knew that it was already larger then the digital media that IMAX is using to make their film and digital prints.

I wouldn't call you a liar Gabe cause there are cases in some theaters where the soundtrack on the film and for others theaters they had to go "double system" which means that the picture and the soundtrack are kept separate and this could be on either 65mm or simple 35mm. This was also true in the earliest CinemaScope releases in order for them to retain the full 2.55:1 aspect ratio, the picture and the soundtrack would be on separate peaces and a magnetic reel would be employed in here. Now a days, you can get full anamorphic at either 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 and still have enough on the 35mm film reals for the soundtrack.

But this is the question, what could 28K or the Red Epic 617 mean to the IMAX? Would they follow suit with their own high resolution digital video cameras?
 
Last edited:
Subhadip Sen said:
Worth mentioning that the 617 frame is 2.75x larger than the IMAX frame, despite the 3:1 aspect ratio.

In fact, it is the 9K 645 that I will expect to be the IMAX competitor. 617 is simply too much of a monster.
Click to expand...

We have whole threads on FF35 or 645 epic for IMAX. FF35 is the possible "good enough" version and 645 is the "essentially the same as" version. 645 is fairly practical as there are numerous still camera lenses available to use with it.
 
I suspect that particular RED sensor is years away- if it even sees the light of day. They have their hands full right now with less exotic cameras.

Noah
 
Which one would you say is the better deal right now, the Epic FF35 or the Epic 645 because if I ever wanted to shoot on the IMAX format, this seems as close as I'm ever gonna get.
 
Robert McGee said:
But this is the question, what could 28K or the Red Epic 617 mean to the IMAX? Would they follow suit with their own high resolution digital video cameras?
Click to expand...

I think it'd mean something pretty awesome...the ability to shoot IMAX without a giant camera, and all the high technical difficulty that comes with it, would be amazing for any kind of film. And IMAX films usually involve the absolute most difficult shooting environments.

Apparently there is supposed to be a digital 3D IMAX camera in development. As far as I know, there aren't any hard details on it though. And given the lax digital IMAX projection standards I don't know if we should expect a camera that can actually deliver results that realistically compete with IMAX film.
 
Like I said, whatever camera you recommend. I'll look at it. There has been alot of backlash from IMAX Digital projection, but to me; IMAX digital is a 'work in progress'. Right now their using two 2K projectors side-by-side to deliver a high quality picture and to me it works but they need to go the route they plained before and go with 2 4K projectors side-by-side and project on one of their much larger screens to see what the result is because right now like you said that 261 Megapixal sensor is years away, I'm also guessing that an 8K projector is also years away.
 
Robert McGee said:
Which one would you say is the better deal right now, the Epic FF35 or the Epic 645 because if I ever wanted to shoot on the IMAX format, this seems as close as I'm ever gonna get.
Click to expand...

Robert:

None of them exist yet - the current NEW generation mysteriumX chip is just being introduced as an upgrade for the REDONE and the epic version hasn't even gotten to the beta test stage. THe FF35, 645, 617 are based on a next, next generation projected chip so who knows when that might be available. Also, it wouldn't be shocking if an exotic version like the 617 never went into production.

The ff35 and 645 versions of epic are pretty likely since they fit with current high end 35mm and medium format pro digital cameras in terms of prices that are paid and the fact that lenses are readily available.
 
I think I'll hold out for the Epic 645, because I'm looking at the wikipedia article and it says that it's maximum resolution is 9334x7000. That is more then 8K.
 
But resolution isn't everything, nor should it be the only consideration here. Along with the larger format comes other factors that should not be considered lightly. You have a greatly enlarged field of view in relation to 35mm photography, this requires larger optics with reduced light transmission, generally speaking. You will have differed depth of field considerations since you will be using longer focal lengths in relation to 35mm photography.

Personally, I can't wait to get my hands on an Epic 645. It will be an incredible, versatile tool. All I'm saying is that if resolution is the number one consideration factor, you should probably re-think this. You also have to consider that the additional resolution gained from the larger formats is gained by using a larger imager, and you gain all the good and bad that comes with doing that.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
But resolution isn't everything, nor should it be the only consideration here. Along with the larger format comes other factors that should not be considered lightly. You have a greatly enlarged field of view in relation to 35mm photography, this requires larger optics with reduced light transmission, generally speaking. You will have differed depth of field considerations since you will be using longer focal lengths in relation to 35mm photography.

Personally, I can't wait to get my hands on an Epic 645. It will be an incredible, versatile tool. All I'm saying is that if resolution is the number one consideration factor, you should probably re-think this. You also have to consider that the additional resolution gained from the larger formats is gained by using a larger imager, and you gain all the good and bad that comes with doing that.
Click to expand...

I'm aware, and once it's in the shop I should also be told what I will need to get.

When it comes to recognizing the good and the bad, that is where a few screen tests come in. You take a look at what looks good at 4K and then shoot the same conditions at 8K or 9K and see what is still useful, but as the filmmaker if I see it creates something I like that can't be seen at 4K then shoot it again for the movie in one of the larger formats. I heard about the problems that ILM had doing effects on IMAX film on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, the biggest problem they encountered was when one of their computers got fried. I'm also thinking that I might do some underwater photography. But I would still have a standard Red One for 4K shooting, not everything will be in the large format.

Plus, the Epic 645 needs to also shoot images at the native IMAX aspect ratio of 1.44:1 at 8K
 
Last edited:
A couple of quick points about the Epic 617:

1. I love Red and am fully confident that they could pull off such a project but lets face it, this wont happen for 5 to 6 years. FF35 is probably 2 years away, 645 another 2 to three years after that and then the 617 god knows when.

2. The concept for this camera is based off of a film panorama camera

Linhof 617: http://www.linhof.de/technorama-e.html

617 images: http://www.linhof.de/images/muschalla-bmw.jpg, http://www.mainlinephoto.com.au/webcontent13.htm

This frame size is great for photography, and bad for motion pictures. Don't get me wrong, it would look great projected and may work for some IMAX esque films , landscape footage and thats about it. Try making a narrative film with this thing, like viewing the last supper painting, your eyes will wander all over the frame and with cuts, it will get very aggravating so the film will need to be slow paced to not overwhelm audiences. Also, the frame will be very cluttered and if you want the audience to focus on one element, you will need to go with shallow dof, leaving a lot of the frame with nothing.

3. Logistical problems:

The sensor is 261 megapixels. The camera would need to record 24 261mp frames a second to get a moving picture. There is a Swiss panorama digital camera with 250mp and it takes 3 to 4 seconds to scan from one side of the frame to the other. The red cam would need to do this much much much faster, requiring a vast amount of image processing power to work. Second, storage is a major problem. You thought uncompressed 4K was hard, try 28k. I do not believe there are any current storage solutions that could handle this system. Last, the issue of projection. 4K is now, 6, 7, 8K in the next four or five years. There will be no projectors within the next decade that can do this, at least not practically.

This camera may be great for stills but not motion work. For Red, the amount of investment and R and D required would not be worth it. No one needs this. Want to take panorama stills? There are plenty of cameras that can do that for much much less without the workload problems. Red, I trust you but honestly, your R&D is much more useful with other products.
 
I totally disagree with your assessment, Andrew. I don't think the 645 or 617 are that far off. I also don't agree with your assumptions of additional R&D or logistical issues.

I also don't share your same opinion of the 617 format being bad for motion pictures. Having a nearly 3:1 aspect ratio is not ideal for the typical cinema screen, but there are so many other applications out there, not to mention all the applications for partial frame use of this larger format. Anyone doing large format / panorama photography is going to want one of these. Anyone doing digital signage, or just about any form of advertising, is going to want one of these. VFX houses are going to want them... The list goes on.
 
An Imax narrative film definitely has to be shot differently, but I don't think it's impossible by any means. I think it may mean the resurgence of long take deep focus shots in mainstream Hollywood movies. A long take doesn't need to be slow paced though...it's certainly harder to set-up and execute, but I believe the results have spectacular potential.

One of the big things that excites me is the death of the close-up. You can get the detail and size of characters you'd normally have in a close-up in a medium Imax shot. This means you get a lot of peripheral environmental detail that can really flesh out the setting and add overall character to the scene. I don't think focus is a problem, if the director's doing their job, the focus of the scene shouldn't be too hard to follow. Keep in mind, if you're watching on an actual Imax screen, you're going to have to move your head to really see the rest of screen properly, so your primary focus is going to be in a certain spot (generally the bottom third), and everything else is more out of the corner of your eye.

I think The Dark Knight is an excellent example of how Imax can be used in narrative. (And of course, anything that works for Imax should translate over as an argument for the Epic 645/617 as well)
 
My biggest issue with a 617 motion picture frame would probably be depth of field. It would have to be an intensely sensitive sensor, or the dof will be just too shallow to use practically at 24 fps, especially in INT/night/low light situations. I don't really have a calculation here, but I am guessing wide angle is likely to be 200mm or so. Anything under 100mm would be super wide, almost fish eye. Those sample pictures definitely look fish eye, except you have much more flexibility for still photography. I am sure RED can pull it off, though.

P.S: I just ran the 170mm width through the focal length chart... 32mm on S35 gives an equivalent field of view to 230mm on 617! 90mm ~ 650mm. Incredible.

The 3:1 aspect ratio certainly has its use. The Ultra Panavision 70 was close enough (2.75:1). Cinerama was always a bit of a funny format though, but flat 3:1 will be interesting. Besides, cropped to 2.35:1, you still have a gargantuan image.

I don't know how long it will take, but eventually, home video is going to be 28K. In that day, we can look back at stuff shot on a 617 and say "Hey! This film doesn't look as old!".
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
I totally disagree with your assessment, Andrew. I don't think the 645 or 617 are that far off. I also don't agree with your assumptions of additional R&D or logistical issues.

I also don't share your same opinion of the 617 format being bad for motion pictures. Having a nearly 3:1 aspect ratio is not ideal for the typical cinema screen, but there are so many other applications out there, not to mention all the applications for partial frame use of this larger format. Anyone doing large format / panorama photography is going to want one of these. Anyone doing digital signage, or just about any form of advertising, is going to want one of these. VFX houses are going to want them... The list goes on.
Click to expand...

The FF35, 645 and 617 are next gen sensors and considering how much more complicated the 617 is than anything currently available, I can see it as a product quite a ways off. The processing power needed to capture 24 261 megapixel images a second will be astounding. I am not saying it will not be possible but just take awhile to be production ready. Film 617 for motion is one thing, but digital is quite another. It will be possible but not practical. The storage issue will be a major hurdle. For advertisers, there are plenty of 617 film cameras that do not cost $70,000. Sure, you could window the frame, but then why would you need the massive sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top