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 :)

Epic X, Epic FF35 and IMAX...

Tom L said:
How about this. Side by side shoot with Panavision 65mm 5-perf and Epic X with Master Primes. 65mm scanned at 6K and finished at 4K. Epic X shot at 5K and finished at 4K. Both projected on the best 4K projector possible.
Click to expand...

That's fine -- just got to find a 65mm scanner in Los Angeles and someone willing to do the work for free!
 
After seeing Avatar on IMAX, looking quite sharp and detailed even in 3D, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that pristine 4K material will look amazing on that big screen.

BTW, apparently "Samsara", shot on 5-perf 65mm, will finish with a 4K DI.
 
Tom L said:
After seeing Avatar on IMAX, looking quite sharp and detailed even in 3D, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that pristine 4K material will look amazing on that big screen.

BTW, apparently "Samsara", shot on 5-perf 65mm, will finish with a 4K DI.
Click to expand...

What resolution was avatar output?
 
2K. But someone was telling me today that 3D has inherently 1.5X the resolution of 2D. Something about the way our eyes perceive the two offset frames. I don't know the details, or whether that is the case, but I will say that Avatar's 2K looked very, very clean and pristine on the full-size IMAX screen.
 
Tom L said:
2K. But someone was telling me today that 3D has inherently 1.5X the resolution of 2D. Something about the way our eyes perceive the two offset frames. I don't know the details, or whether that is the case, but I will say that Avatar's 2K looked very, very clean and pristine on the full-size IMAX screen.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. That is the basic theory of pixel offset in three chip cameras, I was always told that it is a square root of 2 (so closer to 1.4) factor.
 
Tom L said:
How about this. Side by side shoot with Panavision 65mm 5-perf and Epic X with Master Primes. 65mm scanned at 6K and finished at 4K. Epic X shot at 5K and finished at 4K. Both projected on the best 4K projector possible.
Click to expand...

Hi Tom,

If you a really looking for quality just print the 65mm, scanning at 6k & finishing at 4k would not do justice to the 65mm, is that the point of your comparison?

Probably easier to find a 65mm camera as well.

Stephen
 
Hi Stephen,

It was David's suggestion that the projection be on the same format. And since digital is quickly replacing film, and 65mm film projectors essentially have no future whatsoever compared to 4K digital, I thought it made sense to do the test with 4K projection.

As I mentioned earlier, the only major film wrapping production right now on 65mm 5-perf (and possibly the last major film ever shot on 65mm 5-perf), "Samsara," is doing a 4K DI anyway.
 
I think there is some confusion between finishing in 4K and out to 35mm film versus 4K projection.

Personally I think 2K projection is similar to 35mm answer print resolution and 4K projection is similar to 70mm print projection resolution. However I think 35mm needs to be scanned at 4K and 65mm at 6K to 8K.

So scanning 65mm at 6K or 8K and showing it digitally at 4K would be similar to 70mm print projection of 65mm material, in my opinion.

Of course, there are other current problems with 4K projection than resolution, like the black level of the Sony 4K projector.
 
We're on the same sheet of music, David.

The 65mm 5-perf goes to a scan at 6K or 8K, finishing with a 4K DI ... vs .... 5K Bayer acquisition on the Epic X also essentially going to a "4K DI" finish.

Then both films would be shown on the same 4K projector(s), maybe even side by side.

Now all we need is: 65mm film camera package, 65mm film, 65mm lab work, 6- or 8K large format filming scanning, an Epic X, Master Prime, and a couple of 4K projectors.. hahaaha.
 
I've seen some 65mm footage scanned in at 6K and then projected at 4K over at Disney and it was hands down the most amazing thing I have seen on a screen. Way better than any film or digital print. I believe the piece I saw was called "Mystic India". Hopefully there will be some tests going on when Epic-X is released. With all this high ISO low noise going on right now with the 5K sensor, one can only imagine what the FF35 6K Epic will bring to the table.
 
What 4K projector was used, Drew? The 65mm was 5-perf?
 
Tom L said:
What 4K projector was used, Drew? The 65mm was 5-perf?
Click to expand...

As I remember it, they used a Sony 4K because that was all that was really available at the time. This was almost two years ago now. The film was 65mm 5-perf.
 
Well it sounds like Epic X will have its work cut out for it. :)
 
Why not get a beam splitter rig and use lenses with a similar or exact fov and shoot the exact same scene/s. You could then look at the difference in quality of noise vs grain but more importantly the aesthetic quality of the 65mm vs the Epic. Play one then the other and then do side by sides at 4K.

Surely the question is less about the resolution than it is about the aesthetic of the larger image size? Just the same as in still photography shooting 645 over 35mm? Afterall aren't digital imax theatres generally two 2K projectors? Even if they begin to use two 4K projectors that's only an equivalent of 6K resolution... I think :-)

Paul
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Well, I'm sot of ignoring the 4K digital "IMAX" projection scheme as some sort of abomination right now....
Click to expand...
Haha, I agree David, but here in the UK IMAX is basically in its infancy, just as it is in most other places around the world other than the US (I tried to locate the nearest one the other day only to discover it was about 75 miles away!). As such any role-out of IMAX over the coming years is surely going to be digital. Whatever crap format they are beginning to use now is likely to stick as the same crap format we should be getting use too! The resolutions they're opting for simply aren't that much bigger than the Epic S35 and will be surpassed by latter models.

Which is why I came to the aesthetic quality over the resolution question. Surely this is what really sets 65mm and 35mm apart?

Paul
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Well, I'm sot of ignoring the 4K digital "IMAX" projection scheme as some sort of abomination right now....
Click to expand...

It's not even 4K is it? I thought the IMAX Lite theaters were using two 2K projectors or something asinine like that?

IMO, if they had a really nice 4K projector (does such a thing exist?), that should work in the meantime at the large-screen "True IMAX" theaters, until an 8K system can be built.
 
Tom L said:
It's not even 4K is it? I thought the IMAX Lite theaters were using two 2K projectors or something asinine like that?

IMO, if they had a really nice 4K projector (does such a thing exist?), that should work in the meantime at the large-screen "True IMAX" theaters, until an 8K system can be built.
Click to expand...
Hi Tom,
I seem to remember reading somewhere that yes, it's currently two 2K projectors, but there is talk of outfitting with two 4K projectors at some point. When they show 3D they are just using one projector for each eye. It's a bit of a con really when you think about it... two 2K projectors is what... 6MP? That equates to less than a 3.5K combined resolution. With a solid resolution of around 3.2K RedOne footage probably wouldn't look out of place on the screen. Epic S35 will actually resolve greater detail than IMAX digital projection spits out. Guess this is why David dislikes it?

Paul
 
Well, it just follows logically that if 35mm (22mm wide) answer print projection is more like 2K, and 5-perf 70mm (48mm wide) print projection therefore more like 4K (being twice as wide), then 15-perf IMAX (70mm wide) print projection would be more like 6K (between nearly 1.5X wider than normal 70mm print images).

I know that these new digital "IMAX" theaters are using smaller screens than a normal IMAX theater, so perhaps they feel they can get away with dual 2K projection (though that limits them to widescreen images I guess -- a Sony 4K projector after all uses something like four 2K chips in a quad formation.)

But to really replace a 15-perf 70mm IMAX projector for the old IMAX screens, I would hope that the IMAX Corp is looking into developing a 6K projection system. The quality HAS to be dramatically better than a standard movie theater experience or what's the point? Or maybe it would be "easier" to make a quad 4K projector to get 8K.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top