Is IMAX Digital worth the money?

[Robert McGee]

Right now, I'd say yes cause anything that IMAX dishes out has to be good but right now the size of the screen is a problem for some IMAX fans but I can tell you, when I saw Star Trek, my dad saw it with me and he was just blown away. He said the sound was just like Sensurround, a 3.1 soundmix once used in theaters during the 1970's.

Reading that their only using 2 2K projector's side-by-side on a minimum size and smaller size screen. I would challenge them to have 2 4K projectors set up side-by-side and see how that works on their larger screens because the way I see it, IMAX digital is not a cheat it's a work-in-progress just like some of the things that RED has in development.

Do you think IMAX digital is a cheat or a work-in-progress? And either way, is it worth the money?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Do you think IMAX digital is a cheat or a work-in-progress? And either way, is it worth the money?
[/SIZE]

cheat. I can't tell a difference in the size really. The sound seemed comparable to your average theater. Star Trek's sound is amazing even at home . And I could see the pixel pitch which made it completely unacceptable.

And since I have a real IMAX just as close it doesn't really make any sense to compromise.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I have to agree with Gavin here. First of all, "IMAX" showings of films that were not shot on 70mm IMAX, are nothing more than just showing them in an IMAX-branded location. Some of these locations have larger screens than the typical cinema, but most do not. Some IMAX presentations alter the aspect ratio of the film to fill the larger screen better so it could perhaps feel more immersive. Avatar did this and it worked well. Alice in Wonderland is showing in IMAX 3D as well, but the only advantage here is you gain a bit larger image, in the same format, if your IMAX location happens to have a larger screen. The sound systems are no better than any current cinema.

As for the 3D aspect of IMAX, I'm not a fan thus far. I don't mind the Dolby 3D, it's my preferred cinema 3D viewing method. For some reason, the IMAX 3D implementation causes me the most eye-strain. REAL-D causes me eye-strain, but not quite as much, however the REAL-D glasses are just terrible -- lenses are too small and they're the most uncomfortable.

Star Trek looks and sounds amazing just about anywhere. It's one of the best sound mixes, ever. And probably the best quality Blu-Ray authoring job to date. I wish I could say this about The Dark Knight, which has an amazing Blu-Ray sound mix -- after you dig into the menu and turn on the Dolby True-HD option (WTF?, why is it hidden?). But alas, The Dark Knight suffers from terrible over-sharpening, edge halos and aliasing, whoever was in charge of the image on this release should be beat with a suitcase full of spaghetti or something.

 

[Stacey Spears]

IMAX 3D is using linear polarized glasses. When you tilt your head, the 3D goes away. Not sure if this is causing any additional strain for you.

 

[L. Langer]

I've only seen IMAX presentations at genuine old school IMAX theaters using film so I can't really comment on the whole IMAX digital controversy that is being pushed on the public at large but I saw two 3D digital presentations today, Avatar and Clash of The Titans, both using the same 3D projection system. Anyway, COTT was horrible, visually speaking (and the film itself wasn't much better), as the 3D conversion seems to have mangled the visual quality with the 3D usage being mostly miss and little hit but the sound mix was great in the latter half of the movie. Lots of positional surround usage in the Medusa and Kraken sections. Avatar...well, we all know what it is by now but that is how 3D should be done if you've got the dough. I think from now on, I'm sticking to genuine 3D films and watching the 2D stuff in 2D.

 

[Andy Jarosz]

IMAX is a brand name, not a film format. It's very important not to confuse the two.

More info: http://downinfrontshow.blogspot.com/2009/11/test.html

 

[Robert McGee]

Well there is a fine line between what can be considered a suitable IMAX venue for their current digital system. According to their wikipedia article, the largest IMAX digital screen can be 74' x 46' while the smallest IMAX venue to project classic IMAX 15/70 can be 51' x 37' which is a much smaller screen then which what is recommended for IMAX Digital. It is like said, a work-in-progress. It is possible to have a large screens that are not branded by IMAX, it's not written anywhere that you have to work with IMAX to have some supersize movie screen and project a better looking digital projection. IMAX has no competition in the market when it comes to large screens, none. When I sent in my third movie to copyright office, on the DVD I also included a document that explained a new digital cinema format that leaves the current 2K and 4K, even 8K standards in the dust but if I told you more about it, I would have to kill you.

It's true, that's why I believe that what IMAX is doing in terms of their digital projection system is indeed a work in progress. The current system may indeed be a rip-off but the next generation IMAX digital system won't be.

 

[Michel Hafner]

I wish I could say this about The Dark Knight, which has an amazing Blu-Ray sound mix -- after you dig into the menu and turn on the Dolby True-HD option (WTF?, why is it hidden?). But alas, The Dark Knight suffers from terrible over-sharpening, edge halos and aliasing, whoever was in charge of the image on this release should be beat with a suitcase full of spaghetti or something.

Even the IMAX shots are oversharpened. Very disappointing transfer.

 

[Robert McGee]

This is not about IMAX films released on DVD and Blu-Ray, it's about IMAX theaters whether they project 70mm 15/70 or Digital. I just got a Blu-Ray copy of The Wizard of Oz and who am I to complain, that film was first released in 1939 and it's not going to look like it was shot yesterday due to the late 1930's standards of film manufacturing and development. So far only two hollywood films have had sense shot in IMAX and those are The Dark Knight and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. The Lenses on IMAX cameras can achieve a focus level of infinity believe it or not which is not unheard of because Polaroid once made cameras that could also do that as well, one is said to have taken of picture of an actual UFO back in the 50s.

Now RED is currently working on it's own cameras that can shoot at the same resolution as IMAX, the Epic brand cameras are the ones I'm talking about one can shoot at 9K and it should be ready to go on the market in 3 to 5 years. What that would do is atleast get rid of the need to keep buying costly 65mm film that goes in to these IMAX cameras plus it can take up to 9 days to develop one reel of raw IMAX footage.

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

Honestly, I would much prefer a 2K digital projection, with a slightly bigger screen and sitting a bit closer, than the sub-800 lines of resolution scratched up film copies that are constantly out of focus that my local thread usually plays.

 

[Cail Young]

REAL-D causes me eye-strain, but not quite as much, however the REAL-D glasses are just terrible -- lenses are too small and they're the most uncomfortable.

The RealD lenses are bigger than the Dolby ones... ???

 

[Erik Franzén]

4K Digital Projection. 'Nuff said. This "Digital IMAX" deal is driving me crazy. It's IMAX in brandname, not really the "IMAX experience" as people have come to expect it (or well, people who actually cares where they're watching a movie and how good it sounds/looks...). :emote_whack:
4K for 4K$? Bring it on! :001_tt2:

 

[Robert McGee]

The RealD lenses are bigger than the Dolby ones... ???

4K projectors are used in RealD cinema, so now since you've already seen what just one 4K projector can do, just imagine two of them side by side in a huge IMAX theater, one that is like say 102' x 81'. Now that is a large screen, isn't it?

 

[Alex G. Cohn]

As for the 3D aspect of IMAX, I'm not a fan thus far. I don't mind the Dolby 3D, it's my preferred cinema 3D viewing method. For some reason, the IMAX 3D implementation causes me the most eye-strain. REAL-D causes me eye-strain, but not quite as much, however the REAL-D glasses are just terrible -- lenses are too small and they're the most uncomfortable.

This is strange, because while I found Dolby 3D to have the best 3D picture of any that I've seen, it caused the most eye strain for me by far. I had a splitting headache for hours after I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D.

I watched Avatar three times in 3D, once in IMAX 3D, once in Real-D, and once in Xpand-D.

I found Xpand-D to have the best picture of the three, but my nose was hurting from the weight of the glasses by the end of the show.

I didn't notice any eye strain from either IMAX or Real-D, but there was a bit more ghosting when compared to Xpand-D.

 

[M Most]

4K projectors are used in RealD cinema, so now since you've already seen what just one 4K projector can do, just imagine two of them side by side in a huge IMAX theater, one that is like say 102' x 81'. Now that is a large screen, isn't it?

That is not the case. The vast majority of RealD theaters are 2K DLP Cinema projectors, run at 144fps through RealD's Z Screen unit. The RealD add on for the Sony 4K projector was only unveiled recently, and I don't think it works with the older model that is currently installed in already equipped Sony 4K theaters. And even on the new units, the image is still 2K because the Sony/RealD system splits the 4K imaging chip into two 2K sections, which is how the system works. The difference between 2K projectors running RealD and 4K projectors running RealD has nothing to do with resolution, they're basically the same in that regard. The difference is in the technical approach taken to present two different eye views, with the Sony system showing left and right simultaneously, and the DLP Cinema version showing them sequentially, triple flashed to minimize any temporal difference.

 

[Tim Hole]

I agree. Never worked in anywhere with 4K. all 2K DLP. THe IMAX is 2x 2K.

IMAX branding is all about the curvature of the screen, and no Masking. All of the IMAX meetings I have had all talk about blowing up to IMAX rather than native format. With digital the argument is that you don't have to have a big screen because you can bring the screen closer. This affects the viewing cone though. Apparently having two projectors increases the luminance level that increases the 3D effect. Apparently.

I had to view every film that was released in RealD and all IMAX so far. No-one has succeeded in 3D yet in my opinion. The motion blur on Avatar was horrible. Hated it.

 

[Robert McGee]

Dolby 3D is not available in the US, and neither is Xpand-D, we only got ReadD 3D and IMAX 3D.

Sony did sign an exclusive deal with RealD that only their 4K projectors would use RealD 3D, and currently their developing their 3DTVs to use glasses that are lossly based on RealD's technology.

 

[Alex G. Cohn]

Dolby 3D is not available in the US, and neither is Xpand-D, we only got ReadD 3D and IMAX 3D.

Sony did sign an exclusive deal with RealD that only their 4K projectors would use RealD 3D, and currently their developing their 3DTVs to use glasses that are lossly based on RealD's technology.

Do you mean at specific theater chains in the US?

I saw Avatar 3D with Xpand-D at the Arclight Theater in Hollywood, and Alice 3D with Dolby at the Arclight in Sherman Oaks.

 

[M Most]

Dolby 3D is not available in the US, and neither is Xpand-D, we only got ReadD 3D and IMAX 3D.

Sony did sign an exclusive deal with RealD that only their 4K projectors would use RealD 3D, and currently their developing their 3DTVs to use glasses that are lossly based on RealD's technology.

This is also incorrect. Both Dolby and XpanD are in the US, they just don't have the penetration of RealD. In Los Angeles, in fact, the Arclight Hollywood has Dolby in the "regular" theaters, and XpanD in the Cinerama Dome - both part of the same complex. The Dolby and XpanD systems have one big advantage over RealD for theaters that need to equip for both 2D and 3D projection in the same room, and that is the fact the neither of them require a silver screen, which is needed in the RealD system to maintain polarization. The silver screen cannot usually be used for 2D projection because it has higher gain than a "normal" white screen.

Sony's deal with RealD was to outfit their new 4K projector with a RealD branded 3D projection system that involves splitting the 4K chip into effectively 2 2K images, and projecting each one through a separate lens system. This deal has no "exclusivity" other than the fact that this particular version was developed specifically for the Sony projector, and it is unlikely that Sony will support other systems on those projectors - in part because most of the other systems require higher frame rates than the Sony 4K projector is capable of delivering at this point in time.

It is true that Sony's 3D television is a circular polarized system that uses passive glasses, and that RealD glasses can be used with it.

 

[Cail Young]

The silver screen cannot usually be used for 2D projection because it has higher gain than a "normal" white screen.

True, though it dovetails nicely with many chains' habit of running their lamps a bit lower than they should be