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

[stephenv2]

Do not underestimate what is happening with digital RAW cinema. People are going to be completely shocked when full-frame 35mm RAW cameras, like Jim's forthcoming FF35 Epic, start shooting IMAX.

Nobody - well at least not I - am underestimating RAW FF images. Plenty of Canon, Nikon, Sony FF RAW images floating around. It's pretty easy to compare them to my IMAX 5.6k RGB files in 32-bit float.

There is no digital projection for GT screens that is even 1/4 as good as current, so you no matter what you shoot - 2000k RAW - you have to go out to film and digital images have noise. Yes, clean but not CGI clean especially in lower light. And film prints, even fine stock have grain. I was shocked at the flim grain on my first IMAX filmout and that was CGI output.

Don't get me wrong, digital RAW will get there, but like digital projection technology for GT sized screens. It's in development but it simply does not exist today.

A really nice 8k RAW image (4:3 or 3:2 not 16:9 or 1.85) will be threshold that we can talk. Like film scans, Bayer images do much better with oversampling for filmout.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Considering that the average 35mm film projected at a typical multiplex theater is only about 720p, a pristine 4K RGB master, shot on 6K RAW cameras (with top glass, etc, as Pawel says), and projected on state-of-the-art 4K digital projectors, should be an astounding leap in image quality. Something like 5x the quality?

 

[Michael Hastings]

Nobody - well at least not I - am underestimating RAW FF images. Plenty of Canon, Nikon, Sony FF RAW images floating around. It's pretty easy to compare them to my IMAX 5.6k RGB files in 32-bit float.
t's in development but it simply does not exist today.
......
.......
A really nice 8k RAW image (4:3 or 3:2 not 16:9 or 1.85) will be threshold that we can talk. Like film scans, Bayer images do much better with oversampling for filmout.

This is why the 9K 645 4:3 sensor version of Epic Monstro seems to be the sweet spot for minimal to no compromise IMAX.

Plenty of high quality 645 manual still lenses to use as well from Pentax, Hasselblad, Zeiss/Contax, Mamiya, etc. I've already bought my 35mm superwide (about like a 12 or 14 on S35) for my underwater stuff so ready when RED is!

 

[Tim Hole]

I suspect that particular RED sensor is years away- if it even sees the light of day. They have their hands full right now with less exotic cameras.

Noah

But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams beneath your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams -Yeats



Most digital IMAX's installed today are simply 2x2K projectors aligned for contrast and brightness enhancements and to cover the curvature of the screen. Its increasingly becoming less about the size and resolution.

 

[Tim Hole]

Considering that the average 35mm film projected at a typical multiplex theater is only about 720p,

Forgive my ignorance but could you explain a little further, is that due to the quality of the digital mastering?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Forgive my ignorance but could you explain a little further, is that due to the quality of the digital mastering?

It's nothing to do with digital or DIs. It's a combination of factors -- 35mm film acquisition, lab processing, film printing, shabby projector lenses, etc. The test was done at standard multiplexes and the results were fairly shocking. The average resolution of a projected film print was something like 700 lines... slightly less than 720p.

And this is actually born out by observation. I went to see a film print of WALL-E, and then immediately saw a 2K digital projection. The 2K copy smoked the film print. The WALL-E Bluray also smoked the film print.

 

[Tim Hole]

Thats interesting to know. I work part time as a projectionist in a large multiplex (partly for the love of it and partly to fill in the hole that my Independent film works drills), so I can attest to shabby lenses and focus issues. Although I can't say I've really noticed a massive deterioration in stock quality, when you compare a DIGI to a 35mm print there is no comparison.

 

[stephenv2]

You can project and blow-up any resolution you want to IMAX and call it "fine" or "adequate" or "sufficient". And yes, many multiplexes have badly installed screens, projections, sound, bad prints. IMAX theaters (the film ones) are very different. At the GSCA annual awards, one of the major honors is for the theaters projectionist team - right along best film, best score etc. There are only a few hundred film IMAX theaters in the world.

IMAX 3D and Digital IMAX are much lower resolution, dimmer, drabber and thus 1k, 2k, 4k RAW is just fine. 2D IMAX is another thing altogether. Unless you've done you're own filmouts and looked at a lot of tests and footage on GT sized screens, you really have no idea of the resolution requirements to have a pleasing image on a 8 story screen when the audience is sitting pretty damn close.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Have you seen 5.6K or 6K RAW timelapse projected at 4K digitally on a large screen? Believe me, the quality is astounding.

My footage was just tested at 4K digital projection at Fotokem and surprised everyone involved in the project. It was tested against 65mm 5-perf scanned at 8K and projected at 4K digital. The Canon footage surpassed everyone's expectations.

I understand the difference between 5-perf and 15-perf, but even then, I am 100% certain that 6K RAW to 4K RGB 3:2 finish will be breathtaking on an IMAX screen. In fact, I am tentatively planning to shoot my next film as an IMAX picture with Canon and Red 6K cameras. Some people will be skeptical of this idea... but not for long.

 

[Matt W.]

Have you seen 5.6K or 6K RAW timelapse projected at 4K digitally on a large screen? Believe me, the quality is astounding.

My footage was just tested at 4K digital projection at Fotokem and surprised everyone involved in the project. It was tested against 65mm 5-perf scanned at 8K and projected at 4K digital. The Canon footage surpassed everyone's expectations.

I understand the difference between 5-perf and 15-perf, but even then, I am 100% certain that 6K RAW to 4K RGB 3:2 finish will be breathtaking on an IMAX screen. In fact, I am tentatively planning to shoot my next film as an IMAX picture with Canon and Red 6K cameras. Some people will be skeptical of this idea... but not for long.

This, and your comment about theatrical projection being 720p, is absolutely true. The flip side is that good film prints (even from 2k DIs) look surprisingly great, slightly sharper than blu-ray with better black levels and tonality. I was lucky enough to attend the premier of a mid-budget summer action movie a few years ago and the print looked phenomenal even on a huge screen. People think 2k is bad because they associate it with what they see in theaters--but they really see much less.

617 is a trickier format than people realize and will be strictly special-purpose. IMAX is approximately the same film size as 6X7 (less than HALF 617) and uses lenses that appear to be modified from (or based on those used with) the Hasselblad/Rollei and Pentax 6X7 SLR systems. Like modern cinema (film) cameras, these SLR systems (and also IMAX) have mirrors and so require retrofocus designs for wide angle lenses, the design that's familiar to most of us...

617 cameras, however, are rangefinders and use large format (9cmX12cm) lenses with traditional (non-retrofocus) design, because on rangefinders the back of the lens can extend as close to the film plane as needed without hitting the mirror. 617 has just about the tiniest depth of focus imaginable and uses slow lenses, generally f4.5-f8 in speed but meant to be used at f11 or f16 with the wider apertures intended only for focusing. Furthermore, the traditional wide angle (non-retrofocus) lens design, however optically superior, also results in severe fall-off, following the cosine(angle of light)^4 pattern.

This means an ultra-wide angle lens on 617 (55mm) would be f8 at its fastest useful aperture and then require a 2.5 stop center filter to mitigate fall-off. That's slow! Of course you don't need the same pixel density with 617 because large format lenses just don't resolve the lp/mm as, say, master primes, so a less pixel-dense sensor is one option for dealing with this. The massive size also means you have to move the camera very slowly to take advantage of the resolution. IMAX recommends far slower camera moves than are used for 35mm film--and 617 takes that to the extreme. The 617 camera will basically be a high-end hobbiest and vfx camera due to its ridiculous impracticality for like...real movies, but if it ever comes out it should also be very cool.

I shoot medium format (6X7) film in my spare time while I'm unemployed (I left my job as a cashier to try to work in film--not smart). Medium format film is almost the exact same size as IMAX, but with an aspect ratio closer to a square. You can see from this sample image (which I shot with relatively good technique) that 6X7 is not that much sharper than 4k, not because there's less resolution, but because digital has superior acutance compared with film and is much less noisy/grainy:

6X7 scanned at 65 megapixels

So: digital 617 will be a toy/tech demo, digital 645 (for which there are plenty of acceptably fast retrofocus lenses) should be enough to look "ridiculously good" and generally better than IMAX w/r/t to sharpness, 4k and 5k are probably enough to look great on IMAX, not as sharp if you measure but visually similar. Of course, I also think 2k is sufficient for 99% of theatrical exhibition...so the resolution hawks, who to be fair have far more experience in production than I have, will disagree.

 

[stephenv2]

Have you seen 5.6K or 6K RAW timelapse projected at 4K digitally on a large screen? Believe me, the quality is astounding.

I believe I saw your footage at GSCA last year that Fotokem had A/B tested on a small IMAX dome vs 15/70mm filmout test they did for Sony's new 4K projector. If it was not yours, it was some doing the same method (and Fotokem did the filmout) i.e. Canon DSLR raw timelapse.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Wasn't my footage. It was shot 3 weeks ago and tested against 65/5 at FotoKem last week.

 

[Joel Kaye]

The 2K copy smoked the film print. The WALL-E Bluray also smoked the film print.

Yeah. Perfectly projected 2K is easily viewable as superior in a theater. Definitely blew me away the first time I saw it.

The next question is how much resolution can people really resolve. I've run the math and at some point between 3K and 4K you really need to be close to a big screen to resolve 4K vs. 3K. Front row at IMAX? That's probably what required.

Having the ability to crop and magnify is still very useful so acquiring max resolution isn't going to hurt anyone provided they can afford post for it.

 

[Graham_C]

Worth mentioning that the 617 frame is 2.75x larger than the IMAX frame, despite the 3:1 aspect ratio.

In fact, it is the 9K 645 that I will expect to be the IMAX competitor. 617 is simply too much of a monster.

So where does the 617 fit into the scheme of things,how will it be used..?

 

[Peter Majtan]

I suspect that particular RED sensor is years away- if it even sees the light of day. They have their hands full right now with less exotic cameras.

Noah

Jim did confirm the 617 is slated for 2011 in the recent Q&A thread...

I can initially see its adoption for panoramic (maybe motion) photography, followed but few "crazy" to shoot a feature on it - something like Baraka - where the resolution will matter. Due to the limitations in lenses (and focus!) - I don't think it will become mainstream D-Cinema camera - more of a speciality for projects that do feature spectacular imagery (hence Baraka)...

Needless to say - I am getting one myself as soon as it is out. I used to spend well over $25K every year for 617 still photography on stock, development and scanning to get images like these:

(for now) I shoot on the FUJI GX-617:

But this is a recent shot I have taken on the MX RED ONE in 4.5K-WS and the 18MM RPP (COMPLETELY UNTOUCHED - JUST AS SHOT):

Here is a link to full-res TIFF (again - straight output from REDCINE-X without any adjustments):

http://www.derylgroup.com/downloads/REDONE/MX-18MM/A009_C007_0815FE.tif

:devil: Peter

 

[Jeff Coatney]

You + are = you're

You give me hope for the future...

 

[Chad Lancaster]

Peter you should try my 4x10.

As much as I love it, I can't wait for the Red 617.

 

[Robert McGee]

If the Epic 617 28K aspect ratio is really 3.00:1 then how do we work with that when it comes to IMAX? They won't be like IMAX cameras that you have to rent, these can be bought outright just like the Red One.

One move would be to set up a scheme built into the 617's programming to where it shoots say 10K or 12K because that's the bair minimum to match equivalent of the 15/70 format cause my guess is IMAX digital projectors are going to be higher resolution, screens will get larger just like before, both 4:3 and 3:2 can be optional for 10K and 12K and since you have all that extra space, a 3D camera lens for the 617's full range should be consitered because that would give you 1.50:1 if you go the full range on the 617 for stereoscopic 3D. No need for an extra camera, just a special 3D camera lens, we've seen such lenses tested on the red one.

 

[Steven Caesare]

Nobody - well at least not I - am underestimating RAW FF images. Plenty of Canon, Nikon, Sony FF RAW images floating around. It's pretty easy to compare them to my IMAX 5.6k RGB files in 32-bit float.

There is no digital projection for GT screens that is even 1/4 as good as current, so you no matter what you shoot - 2000k RAW - you have to go out to film and digital images have noise. Yes, clean but not CGI clean especially in lower light. And film prints, even fine stock have grain. I was shocked at the flim grain on my first IMAX filmout and that was CGI output.

Don't get me wrong, digital RAW will get there, but like digital projection technology for GT sized screens. It's in development but it simply does not exist today.

A really nice 8k RAW image (4:3 or 3:2 not 16:9 or 1.85) will be threshold that we can talk. Like film scans, Bayer images do much better with oversampling for filmout.

I'm confused by this argument you are making. Whatever degradion the filmout process adds (grain,etc...) won't that equally apply to whatever source aquisition format you are using?

How does this argue against Tom's assertion that grainless 5-6K RAW acquistion will be sufficient for IMAX?

 

[Matt W.]

Well, so far I'm pretty happy with 6X7--and I've only spent about $50 on film, processing, and scans with it so far--but I plan to go to 4X5 when I can afford it. The digital world will be in for a treat if the medium format reds live up to the hype. (They may not: color rendering, not resolution, is the reason I like film.)

Peter you should try my 4x10.

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.