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

[Chad Lancaster]

Chad, those are some unusually nice shots on your site... I just started shooting medium format a few weeks ago--just local stuff for fun--but am moving to the west coast in a few months. Any chance you can give me some pointers on good locations? The 4X10 camera is seriously cool, btw.

Thanks

There are so many places..the entire sierras, big sur, and the southwest are all nearby..send me an email if your looking for a place within a certain area.

 

[Matt W.]

Thanks! I'll send you an email in a few months once I'm out there. Very cool what you're doing with the wide aspect ratio, btw. I'd never heard of 4X10 until today but it seems like an ideal format for your subject matter (though I have no idea how you find film for it).

 

[Michael Hastings]

snip....
You can project and blow-up any resolution you want to IMAX and call it "fine" or "adequate" or "sufficient".

This has been my point all along. I'm sure 6K FF Epic will look great but basically the pixel density of the epics is roughly the same as the inherent resolution of modern film and based on the numbers put out by the most credible people it seems that the 9K 645 will be the closest to both imager size and resolution to the "true" resolution and feel of the top quality IMAX.

Most importantly, though, will be the fact that it is in a compact camcorder size/format with very long, inexpensive record times so IMAX-like imagery will be available for virtually any serious project that wants it. They won't be limited by film/camera cost nor the logistical headaches of the film-based IMAX systems.

 

[Peter Majtan]

Peter you should try my 4x10...

Chad - if You ever go to Japan or New Zealand - let me know and make sure You bring it with You. If I may ask - what do You use to scan the film? I am seriously looking at the Hasselblad Flextight X5...

Cheers,

Peter

 

[Chad Lancaster]

Chad - if You ever go to Japan or New Zealand - let me know and make sure You bring it with You. If I may ask - what do You use to scan the film? I am seriously looking at the Hasselblad Flextight X5...

Cheers,

Peter

Peter..I've been dying to go to both, hopefully some day soon. Andris Apse in NZ has some amazing panoramic landscape photos

http://www.andrisapse.com/

I send them to West Coast Imaging..They drum scan them on a Heidelberg Tango at 1.2GB in 16bit. Not cheep but very worth it for the huge prints I make. My camera is small compared to some peoples standards...William Corey( http://www.williamcorey.com/index.html) shot japanese gardens with a 8x20 and had to special order a pallet of film from kodak.

Matt- Sadly Fuji doesn't make 4x10 film. I light sealed my closet and I cut 8x10 film down using a rototrim and wearing night vision goggles. NOT fun by any means! but this is where red comes to the rescue

 

[Peter Majtan]

Hi Chad - I know Adris very well - in fact he was with me on the shoot in Fiordland NP. I still owe him big time... He was my inspiration to become landscape photographer - I've worked hard and after several years I was able to hire him to come with me on that Fiordland project - where we were testing the (then) brand new E200 from Kodak aimed directly at Fuji for nature photography. He has inspired me so much that I have named my first-born son after him - Andris...

:sifone: Peter

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

This has been my point all along. I'm sure 6K FF Epic will look great but basically the pixel density of the epics is roughly the same as the inherent resolution of modern film and based on the numbers put out by the most credible people it seems that the 9K 645 will be the closest to both imager size and resolution to the "true" resolution and feel of the top quality IMAX.

I've been saying this for some time. And the 645 frame, while not quite as big as a 15/70 IMAX frame, is still quite large and will definitely be seen as a digital alternative, or even replacement, for the format. I suppose RED could pursue a 6x7 or 15/70 sized brain, but to me that doesn't make anywhere near as much sense. The 645 is the obvious choice, there's far more glass and existing market out there for the format.

@Tom, I do agree that a 4K RGB image projected in 4K will rival, or even surpass, projected IMAX prints. But to me this thinking of acquiring 5K+ Bayer for 4K RGB finish is not really going to cut it as IMAX evolves their own digital systems or when converting 70mm IMAX negs into 8K or better digital masters. To me, 4K digital projection is equivalent or better for final delivery compared to IMAX film distribution in the same way 2K/1080p is definitely equivalent, and in many cases better, than 35mm film distribution where the nominal resolution isn't much better than 750 lines.

All just my thoughts on this, but based on what we know right now, I think I would feel plenty safe shooting for IMAX distribution on a combination of Epic 645 and 617 cameras. This route should prove very economical compared to shooting 15/70 IMAX systems and should provide the source resolution and image quality to contend with the 70mm film stock.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Believe me, I would be happy to use a 645 for IMAX screens. My only point was that we don't need to wait for it to start shooting digital IMAX -- the FF35 Epic should do the job nicely, IMO.

One thing to consider is the glass. The FF35 format is benefiting greatly from this megapixel "arms race" between Canon, Nikon, Ziess, etc. Take the Nikon 14-24 or the Canon 85mm 1.2 as examples of the type of glass available on that format. Their sharpness rivals Master Primes, but on a much larger sensor than S35 --Vista Vision.

The wildcard in all of this is what IMAX is planning for their "Digital IMAX" camera. I've not even heard any rumors yet about what it will be. Maybe 8K Bayer with 65/15-sized sensor? Maybe 6K? Have they been talking secretly with Jim? :ihih: And what about their digital IMAX projector? 4K? 6K? 8K? Who knows. But that will be an extremely crucial piece of this puzzle.

 

[JohnF]

And what about their digital IMAX projector? 4K? 6K? 8K? Who knows. But that will be an extremely crucial piece of this puzzle.

I'd suggest the projector is the piece of the puzzle.

With the Epic 35FF to 617 it would be fair to say, from a technical point-of-view, that the cameras with resolution and dynamic range (NTM HDR mode) suitable for IMAX are more than covered.

The output is crucial here.

JohnF

 

[Peter Majtan]

The wildcard in all of this is what IMAX is planning for their "Digital IMAX" camera. I've not even heard any rumors yet about what it will be. Maybe 8K Bayer with 65/15-sized sensor? Maybe 6K? Have they been talking secretly with Jim?

Considering that most of the key IMAX people live in Laguna Beach, which is very very close to Lake Forrest (about 15~20 min) and even closer to where Jim lives - I can see this as highly likely scenario...

:beer: Peter

 

[Brian Petrie]

Considering that most of the key IMAX people live in Laguna Beach, which is very very close to Lake Forrest (about 15~20 min) and even closer to where Jim lives - I can see this as highly likely scenario...

:beer: Peter

I agree. The cost of R&D would be very high for IMAX to create one from scratch. Especially with the EPIC being modular, IMAX could used all their time, effort and money into creating specialized modules specific for IMAX productions. While I am only speculating I think it does sound like a "match made in heaven" to further push the envelope of digital acquisition and projection.

 

[Robert McGee]

I've been saying this for some time. And the 645 frame, while not quite as big as a 15/70 IMAX frame, is still quite large and will definitely be seen as a digital alternative, or even replacement, for the format. I suppose RED could pursue a 6x7 or 15/70 sized brain, but to me that doesn't make anywhere near as much sense. The 645 is the obvious choice, there's far more glass and existing market out there for the format.

@Tom, I do agree that a 4K RGB image projected in 4K will rival, or even surpass, projected IMAX prints. But to me this thinking of acquiring 5K+ Bayer for 4K RGB finish is not really going to cut it as IMAX evolves their own digital systems or when converting 70mm IMAX negs into 8K or better digital masters. To me, 4K digital projection is equivalent or better for final delivery compared to IMAX film distribution in the same way 2K/1080p is definitely equivalent, and in many cases better, than 35mm film distribution where the nominal resolution isn't much better than 750 lines.

All just my thoughts on this, but based on what we know right now, I think I would feel plenty safe shooting for IMAX distribution on a combination of Epic 645 and 617 cameras. This route should prove very economical compared to shooting 15/70 IMAX systems and should provide the source resolution and image quality to contend with the 70mm film stock.

The reason why I proposed 10K and 12K at 1.44:1 while everyone else is proposing 5K, 5.6K and 6K is primary because when your dealing with digital video and not actual 70mm film, the video codec what is used by the camera may not hold as much detail as it does resolution at times, I looked at a Blu-Ray that had MPEG2 encoding and compared it to those that use AVC and VC1, the older and little more loser MPEG2 format held more detail and more contrast, and would be a much closer match to the quality of it's 2K or 4K digital cinema counterpart. My guess is if the camera is going to use a loosely video codec like .r3d then you got to have a higher resolution to retain more detail. For example in the war between VHS and Betamax, Betamax lost out for the wrong reasons, it can hold more detail then standard VHS, for example a 2 hour recording on Betamax will look better the it would on a 2 hour recording on VHS. It may have lost out in terms of being in the living room but Betamax was still being used by professionals at the time and was surpassed by later tape formats more suited to handle 640x480 resolution