"Contagion"... IMAX.

[AnthonyFlores]

I saw a remastered version of Taxi Driver in 4k on one of those new 4k Sony projectors and it was amazing. I think there are very few of them in the world but it was awesome.

I would love this, one of my favorites. Very happy that Jim and the gang are paving the way for more high-quality viewing experiences like this.

 

[conrad gaunt]

Where exactly are you getting this information? IMAX oversees the printing process of the 15/65mm prints, and no information is lost in file transfers, which is all digital IMAX is. IMAX spends tons of money on boosting image quality with it's 2 week DMR process... that'd all be a waste if what you say is true. And the digital projection quality is dual top of the line DLP projectors that produces some of the brightest and most colorful digital images in the world... at 2K. The files they receive are legitimate 2K files as well...

Not the same place you get your information (which is called marketing).

I'm sure everything you say is true, and the short answer is, Imax try and show the best images possible... but, if you think all that information actually makes it to the screen in a meaningful way, your wrong.

Imax projection has been tested using the checkerboard test I originally mentioned. Start with four black and white squares and keep subdividing until everything is a grey goo.. and thats your optical resolution.

I hear someone at imax tried this once, and then got fired. I also heard the cutoff was barely 1080p. Go figure, must be something to do with physics, because it turns out Imax hype/ marketing doesn't really influence projector performance at all

Cute. Apparently it was a needed update for Conrad...

Not sure whats been updated here, you're still wrong in your assertions.. but Imax will appreciate that..

 

[David Rasberry]

The last 35mm scope projector I set up in a small college theater in 1991 showed around 850 lines vertical resolution on the test chart film. Decent 2k digital projection should approximately equal this. I would expect real Imax film prints to easily double that with good originals.

Digital Imax with stacked 2k projectors winds up with around 1477 pixels vertical to match 2048 width at IMAX 1.44 image ratio. The two images overlap for seamless blending in the middle. Should be marginally better than standard 2k projection, but not as good as a single 4k projector would provide. Figure maybe 1100 to 1200 lines resolved?

 

[conrad gaunt]

Figure maybe 1100 to 1200 lines resolved?

Thats about what I would expect, perhaps a little higher than I thought

 

[Keegan O'Brien]

Not the same place you get your information (which is called marketing).

I'm sure everything you say is true, and the short answer is, Imax try and show the best images possible... but, if you think all that information actually makes it to the screen in a meaningful way, your wrong.

Imax projection has been tested using the checkerboard test I originally mentioned. Start with four black and white squares and keep subdividing until everything is a grey goo.. and thats your optical resolution.

I hear someone at imax tried this once, and then got fired. I also heard the cutoff was barely 1080p. Go figure, must be something to do with physics, because it turns out Imax hype/ marketing doesn't really influence projector performance at all



Not sure whats been updated here, you're still wrong in your assertions.. but Imax will appreciate that..

What were the details of the 15/65mm print? Meaning, obviously a film like Dark of the Moon will resolve to a significantly lower resolution than The Dark Knight. The age of the print has to be taken into account too, the longer the film's been showing the more wear and tear and therefore, less resolution.

How does this work for digital, exactly? I mean, the lines of resolution are set at 2K, and all of the projectors have the 2048x1152 (16x9) lines of resolution... and all of the files are 2K as well... so how exactly would a 2K file played on a 2K system resolve less than 2K?

 

[Julio Quintana]

Over exposing the image was probably a very deliberate visual metaphor. Certain parts of the image are "protected" while other parts are subject to contamination (from light). It's a visual reminder of the situation the characters are faced with...some people will be infected and some won't, but you don't know who or when. It's unsettling.

That's an interesting theory, except that Soderbergh has been blowing highlights all over the place since "Traffic". I think he is EXTREMELY talented, which he has proven over and over again, but over the last few years it feels like he just decided that lighting doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Julio Quintana]

Here is a good interview with Soderbergh on "Contagion". He discusses his current frustration with filmmaking and his plans to try a new career soon. I personally find it very admirable.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11891