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 :)

"Contagion"... IMAX.

Jannard

Jannard

Red Leader
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
8,248
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Soderbergh's "Contagion" was finished in 4K for IMAX release. This may be one of the 1st Shot on RED features to do so...

Jim
 
It would be nice to see a 4k screening at Imax resolution, not sure I have.

How much of the 4k will be visible on a hundred foot Imax screen is another question I think..

My guess is if you projected a 4k checkerboard pattern on a large imax screen, you'd see a lot of grey.. so the question for me is, wouldn't it be better to downsample to 2k (or whatever optical resolution does make it to the screen) first, and maybe improve clarity that way?

Not meant as a Red rag, I just don't think the digital projectors have the contrast ratios yet for your cameras, even at imax size..
 
Last edited:
conrad gaunt said:
How much of the 4k will be visible on a hundred foot Imax screen is another question I think..
Click to expand...

Anyone who has seen 4K RED footage on a 4K projector will tell you "You will see all of it." :thumbup1:
 
Todd T said:
Anyone who has seen 4K RED footage on a 4K projector will tell you "You will see all of it." :thumbup1:
Click to expand...

Well... not really. Everyone knows that the image you actually end up getting from the Red One MX isn't 4K... I believe Jim said it was around 3.2K after debayering. So, even with a true 4K finish, you don't have a true 4K image. You'd need the EPIC, F65, or Anamorphic 35mm for that. Then the question is whether or not any resolution is lost once printed on the film stock. I know with 35mm that the general consensus seems to be that a fair amount is lost, but I don't know if that's true with 15/65mm. I doubt it, but who knows.

I saw the film in D-IMAX, and aside from my gripes with the cinematography, the footage itself was gorgeous on those monster DLP projectors.
 
Going to try to see it in IMAX this week - should be fun!

Graeme
 
Keegan O'Brien said:
Well... not really. Everyone knows that the image you actually end up getting from the Red One MX isn't 4K... I believe Jim said it was around 3.2K after debayering. So, even with a true 4K finish, you don't have a true 4K image.
Click to expand...

Shooting the highest available resolution on R1 resolves to 3.7k (from 4.5k before debayering).
 
Keegan O'Brien said:
Well... not really. Everyone knows that the image you actually end up getting from the Red One MX isn't 4K... I believe Jim said it was around 3.2K after debayering. So, even with a true 4K finish, you don't have a true 4K image. You'd need the EPIC, F65, or Anamorphic 35mm for that.
Click to expand...

I think Contagion used Epic M cameras as well as Red One MX. I have no clue how much of the film was shot on what camera though because that Soderbergh guy keeps hiring that Soderbergh clown as his DP. He really ought to give me a whirl.

Kidding aside, there may well be points where the image was true 4K+ resolution finished to 4K.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
I think Contagion used Epic M cameras as well as Red One MX. I have no clue how much of the film was shot on what camera though because that Soderbergh guy keeps hiring that Soderbergh clown as his DP. He really ought to give me a whirl.

Kidding aside, there may well be points where the image was true 4K+ resolution finished to 4K.
Click to expand...

Nope, the film was entirely shot with the MX.

Tim, thanks for clarification.
 
Last edited:
Jed Shepherd said:
Jannard seems to think its all MX. Maybe the plan was to use a tatoo epic but might not have happened in the end?....
Click to expand...

well doesnt epic use the MX sensor?? epic and MX arent mutually exclusive, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top