AS GOOD AS IMAX

[Nick Morrison]

From Dariusz Wolksi, ASC... in this month's issue of American Cinematographer...about shooting on Epic:

"When we can capture in 5k, do visual effects and other post works in 4k, and then project in 4k, I think it will look as good as Imax".

Imagine how good it will look on Dragon?


The article goes on to say that he choose the Epic also for its small size, "Its a little bigger than a Hasselblad."


Other tidbits:
He mostly shot Prometheus in 5:1 compression, though sometimes 3:1 for scenes with "very fine detail like water or foliage", the article notes.

Some great Ridley Scott quotes:
"I really love the picture quality of Red"
"I think Prometheus is a pretty good showcase for Red. Dariusz made it look absolutely beautiful in both 2-D and 3-D".

If it's good enough for Ridley, it's good enough for me!

 

[Kwan Khan]

Nice

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Been saying this since we first got delivery of our EPIC M8...


Trow 70mm film at me, and I'll trow it in the trash for you...

 

[Kieran Moreira]

I'd be curious to see the compression rates on other more recent films shot on the Epic. If the trend has been changing? If you have the space and time, I'd say they just go for it. 3:1 with the water and foliage must look stellar.

 

[Timur Civan]

Ok so......

Does 3:1 compression actually make for sharper pictures?

 

[Scott Crawley]

Ok so......

Does 3:1 compression actually make for sharper pictures?

The more compression is used the more data is lost, and fine details can be lost with it, so yes lower ratios can yield higher detail. The caveat is that your signal chain from acquisition to delivery must be equally able to yield those details. A poor lens, shooting technique, post operation or distribution method could kill those details at any point.

 

[Timur Civan]

3:1 it is then.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Been saying this since we first got delivery of our EPIC M8...


Trow 70mm film at me, and I'll trow it in the trash for you...

Ketch you're a lovable guy, but these kinds of comments are ludicrous. No digital system has yet to beat ANY film, even 16, in many areas. Epic may be the best digital system, but it doesn't beat film yet, let alone Imax film using Imax format lenses.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Ketch you're a lovable guy, but these kinds of comments are ludicrous. No digital system has yet to beat ANY film, even 16, in many areas. Epic may be the best digital system, but it doesn't beat film yet, let alone Imax film using Imax format lenses.

Roger Deakins said otherwise recently in American Cinematographer. He said digital had eclipsed film in many ways, in particular with low light shooting.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Been saying this since we first got delivery of our EPIC M8...


Trow 70mm film at me, and I'll trow it in the trash for you...

LOVE U Ketch. But no way is Epic beating 15 perf 65mm film. Sorry .

 

[Peter Moretti]

Roger Deakins said otherwise recently in American Cinematographer. He said digital had eclipsed film in many ways, in particular with low light shooting.

Calling IMAX "film" is like calling a Lamborghini "transportation."

 

[Tehben Dean]

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.

 

[Jon Jones]

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.

Ketch you're a lovable guy, but these kinds of comments are ludicrous. No digital system has yet to beat ANY film, even 16, in many areas. Epic may be the best digital system, but it doesn't beat film yet, let alone Imax film using Imax format lenses.

 

[Mark Toia]

LOVE U Ketch. But no way is Epic beating 15 perf 65mm film. Sorry .

Not sure about that.. I just watched a IMAX movie, jitter, scratches, film pop, was sharp... but not razor...... and I remember clearly a 4k presentation at RED that was sharper, cleaner and richer.

I think it really comes down to lens quality now.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

shut up about all this he said she said crap

I was going to post just that. Of course the question matters and if the result is that 5K looks as nice as IMAX then that's good news. Isn't it? Perhaps Wolski meant 5-perf 70mm. Even there I have not yet been shown a comparison. I look forward to it.

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.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Kids? Spanking? Shut up?... Really?

I get your point but I think it could have been made without the disrespectful rhetoric. Did he offend you personally and directly to warrant this kind of treatment? I'm no saint, and this one is tough for me to roll with.

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.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

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.

Spanking huh? Where I'm from that's not a threat, it's an invitation for a date. However, I doubt you meant it that way.

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?

 

[Robino_J]

I just watched a IMAX movie, jitter, scratches, film pop,

I love all that. I personally and stylistically don't like the clean plastic digital and over processed look that many around here seem to love. All imperfections are welcome specially when coming from film in my book.

 

[Mark Toia]

I love all that. I personally and stylistically don't like the clean plastic digital and over processed look that many around here seem to love. All imperfections are welcome specially when coming from film in my book.

Thats fair enough