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 :)

New IMAX Digital Camera "4K resolution"

Gavin Greenwalt said:
I still think it's pretty dubious to emphasize not using pixel-shifting or up rezzing and then use a bayer pattern which from my admittedly ignorant perspective seems to be the exact same principle.
Click to expand...

Without arguing on details or semantics, the major point is that we were utterly honest about using a bayer pattern CMOS sensor, whereas can you remember how Panasonic ducked and dived the question of how the HVX200 achieved it's resolution?

On a similar note, do you remember how / when you found out HDCAM wasn't 1920x1080, but was 1440x1080 on luma and 480x1080 on chroma? Or that 720p DVCProHD wasn't 1280x720 (960x720), but that "lowly" HDV was 1280x720?

And bringing things up to modern times, has Sony said what the sensor is in their F3 yet? They were asked on their Facebook chat launch, but no answer came....

Graeme
 
michael zaletel said:
Buy some where? ;)

-michael zaletel
Click to expand...
I'll sell them my place in line for less money than they can build one. Not that I am offering to sell mine, but Jim did say the way to become a millionaire is to have a billion and then build a camera. For that kind of money, I would have to listen.:thumbsup:
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Without arguing on details or semantics, the major point is that we were utterly honest about using a bayer pattern CMOS sensor, whereas can you remember how Panasonic ducked and dived the question of how the HVX200 achieved it's resolution?
...
Graeme
Click to expand...
I was looking to buy the HVX200 and was put off for the exact same reason you mention. Glad I was 'cause shortly after that I found out about RED.
 
Last edited:
Graeme Nattress said:
Without arguing on details or semantics, the major point is that we were utterly honest about using a bayer pattern CMOS sensor, whereas can you remember how Panasonic ducked and dived the question of how the HVX200 achieved it's resolution?

On a similar note, do you remember how / when you found out HDCAM wasn't 1920x1080, but was 1440x1080 on luma and 480x1080 on chroma? Or that 720p DVCProHD wasn't 1280x720 (960x720), but that "lowly" HDV was 1280x720?

And bringing things up to modern times, has Sony said what the sensor is in their F3 yet? They were asked on their Facebook chat launch, but no answer came....

Graeme
Click to expand...

Thanks Graeme... I've just learned a lot in this post.

I knew about HDcam being 1440 but didn't knew about the rest.


Patrick
 
Unless they are developing a top-to-bottom system of acquisition to exhibition that is hardware accelerated using their resolution busting algorithm, I'm skeptical about their progress on the camera front. They could build a handful of hot-rodded cameras for their specific venue to protect their format and hedge against interlopers. But in the end, I believe they will convert to Red Ray based tech and simply win by opening more venues. With IMAX, it will be less about the image size and more about the venue. In the future, we'll all have IMAX level resolution imaging, but who can really provide the huge screen and the huge seating environment? IMAX should focus on the Real Estate component of their business and leave the pixels to others.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
With IMAX, it will be less about the image size and more about the venue. In the future, we'll all have IMAX level resolution imaging, but who can really provide the huge screen and the huge seating environment?
Click to expand...

But a huge screen means a larger image size and should demand more resolution. IMAX images should appear hyper-detailed and clear on a 50' tall screen, that's the ideal.

If everyone is projecting 4K someday and IMAX is just a bigger screen with the same 4K image quality, what's the point??? You'd get the same effect just sitting closer to the normal 4K theater screen.
 
haha... good point david.

i think we're all a little confused about this... hopefully there's something more than we know (for their own sakes).

that being said... bring on the next line of reds... 8k? Ok. :)
 
David Mullen ASC said:
But a huge screen means a larger image size and should demand more resolution. IMAX images should appear hyper-detailed and clear on a 50' tall screen, that's the ideal.

If everyone is projecting 4K someday and IMAX is just a bigger screen with the same 4K image quality, what's the point??? You'd get the same effect just sitting closer to the normal 4K theater screen.
Click to expand...
David, are you saying IMAX is becoming redundant? Or are you saying there is a niche for it when larger sensor cameras become available?
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
"No Uprezzing or Pixel-Shifting spoken here!"

Graeme was always clear if you were on DVXUser. RED's website and marketing on the other hand...

I still think it's pretty dubious to emphasize not using pixel-shifting or up rezzing and then use a bayer pattern which from my admittedly ignorant perspective seems to be the exact same principle.

As far as IMAX goes, well they lost their credibility when they started projecting in 2k. Luckily there is a real IMAX here and not just liemaxes.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. Red was always upfront about what they were delivering and what you could expect.

Just as film specifies the format (35mm) regardless of the detail it could resolve (there being many different filmstocks, Red has specified the format, and provided real-world data about what it was capable of resolving.


-sc
 
I think you have to treat acquisition and exhibition as two different things with Digital IMAX. Like David mentioned Digital IMAX is 2x2K. But IMAX is all about the experience rather than just the resolution, apparently. It is the curved screen, the fact that it is not masked, the sound and the stadium seating. The biggest thing however is the calibrated dual projectors for contrast and brightness.

IMAX acquisition is about getting the resolution and the field of view. Most of the IMAX assets are converted to IMAX so few people are actually shooting IMAX, for IMAX, but I am still fed up with seeing films that are letter boxed in IMAX - that defies the point in my mind,

With acquisition you kind of expect something gamechanging if IMAX are making cameras. Maybe they are just developing what they need for the brand and that it.
 
Elsie N said:
Why don't they just buy some Epics? It would be a lot cheaper.
Click to expand...

because IMAX camera must be huuuuge ... and not look like some camcorder :wink5:
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Without arguing on details or semantics, the major point is that we were utterly honest about using a bayer pattern CMOS sensor, whereas can you remember how Panasonic ducked and dived the question of how the HVX200 achieved it's resolution?

On a similar note, do you remember how / when you found out HDCAM wasn't 1920x1080, but was 1440x1080 on luma and 480x1080 on chroma? Or that 720p DVCProHD wasn't 1280x720 (960x720), but that "lowly" HDV was 1280x720?

And bringing things up to modern times, has Sony said what the sensor is in their F3 yet? They were asked on their Facebook chat launch, but no answer came....

Graeme
Click to expand...


Yes that's crazy
 
What about the NKH 8k camera that I read a little about in the December issue of F&DTimes? Is this something along the line of what IMAX would be going for?

I can't seem to find much about this camera either...shouldn't it be bigger news?
 
He said "at least 4K", which makes me assume they are looking forward to higher resolutions. Whats the point of shooting 9K if you can't even project it at 9K? I understand the post flexibility that would provide, etc... but IMAX's claim to fame is a huge image for the audience to experience. Until there are projectors that can throw up a 9K or higher res image, they can't really do much digitally and still be what they've always branded themselves to be.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
But a huge screen means a larger image size and should demand more resolution. IMAX images should appear hyper-detailed and clear on a 50' tall screen, that's the ideal.

If everyone is projecting 4K someday and IMAX is just a bigger screen with the same 4K image quality, what's the point??? You'd get the same effect just sitting closer to the normal 4K theater screen.
Click to expand...

Yes, I completely agree with you. For IMAX to develop an "IMAX" solution, they have to begin at 8K+. The interview clearly states 4K-- which we will all have. That leaves IMAX with only one advantage in the market: their venue size. Is that enough to still be called IMAX? Not if I were running their company.
 
Jeff Coatney said:
Yes, I completely agree with you. For IMAX to develop an "IMAX" solution, they have to begin at 8K+. The interview clearly states 4K-- which we will all have. That leaves IMAX with only one advantage in the market: their venue size. Is that enough to still be called IMAX? Not if I were running their company.
Click to expand...

IMAX isn't a standard it's a brand name.
 
A quarterback has to throw where the receiver will be...

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top