New IMAX Digital Camera "4K resolution"

[Aaron McAdam]

A quarterback has to throw where the receiver will be...

Jim

I would hate to be one of your receivers, Jim, because you throw the ball WAY farther than everybody else.

(which is why I actually am glad I will be one of your "receivers" when Scarlet comes out...you set the bar/expectation high)

Bring on the 500 yard fields!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

A quarterback has to throw where the receiver will be...

Jim

I hope you aren't arguing that IMAX should limit themselves to 4K origination because there aren't any digital projectors in existence higher than 4K, after arguing that regular 35mm Hollywood movies and TV shouldn't limit themselves to less than 4K for future-proofing.

IMAX has to promise something radically bigger and better than the average Hollywood production format uses or else there is no point to the format.

Your quote implies that the quarterback (the filmmaker) should not aim any higher or farther than where the current receiver (current distribution technology) is, so now I'm confused. If that's what you meant, then what's the point of making a TV show in resolution higher than 1080P? And most of the DCP servers are set-up for 2K files and most of the digital projectors in theaters are 2K. So that's the current position of the receiver where a quarterback would throw to. So I don't understand your quote.

 

[Fabián Aguirre]

I hope you aren't arguing that IMAX should limit themselves to 4K origination because there aren't any digital projectors in existence higher than 4K, after arguing that regular 35mm Hollywood movies and TV shouldn't limit themselves to less than 4K for future-proofing.

IMAX has to promise something radically bigger and better than the average Hollywood production format uses or else there is no point to the format.

Your quote implies that the quarterback (the filmmaker) should not aim any higher or farther than where the current receiver (current distribution technology) is, so now I'm confused. If that's what you meant, then what's the point of making a TV show in resolution higher than 1080P? And most of the DCP servers are set-up for 2K files and most of the digital projectors in theaters are 2K. So that's the current position of the receiver where a quarterback would throw to. So I don't understand your quote.

I think Jim is referring to the quarterback as the camera maker, not the filmmaker-- the receiver is the future. This means that the camera maker must anticipate the future (much higher resolution), and therefore act on that. But then again, I hate football. hmy:

--
www.saurosdigital.com

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think Jim is referring to the quarterback as the camera maker, not the filmmaker-- the receiver is the future. This means that the camera maker must anticipate the future (much higher resolution), and therefore act on that. But then again, I hate football. hmy:

--
www.saurosdigital.com

Well, that makes more sense I guess... I thought he was arguing that IMAX is right to set 4K as a target because otherwise they'd have to design a 6K or 8K infrastructure and projection system from the ground-up, i.e. they should think practically, not dream big, which is sort of the opposite of the Red message (and the IMAX ideal).

 

[Tom Lowe]

You have to "lead" a moving target. For example, we know that Canon and Sony have been toying around with 4K prototype cameras. But that's like aiming at a target which has already passed by. The new target, now, for cinema, is 4K display, not 4K Bayer acquisition. So instead of messing around with 4K prototypes, they should jump straight to 6K Bayer cameras.

This post from Jim makes me believe that the chit-chat and wishful thinking about Jim working with IMAX was totally wrong. IMAX would probably be wise to call Jim and invite him to lunch, though.

In the meantime, I do believe that Epic FF35 6K 3:2 images printed to 70mm IMAX or projected at 4K (3:2?) onto IMAX screens will do the job for now.

If I could ask Jim one question, it would be this: How far behind the Epic X is the Epic FF35? Could we see working prototypes by late 2011, for example? Cameras in the field, ready to roll, by Jan 2012?

 

[Gunleik Groven]

The FF is Monstro, right?
(get back to the family! ... -

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

If I could ask Jim one question, it would be this: How far behind the Epic X is the Epic FF35? Could we see working prototypes by late 2011, for example? Cameras in the field, ready to roll, by Jan 2012?

Tom,

I can see you are very excited and enthusiastic but let us be real and talk about that RED in a way that they

still have to make a big order in their house in the next year about production, delivery, etc,...

and also they should work right now very hard to get colors right (finally) that means this must be their mayor priority in the near future.

All other things like a FF35, 6K+ will come later....

 

[Kevin Marshall]

Your quote implies that the quarterback (the filmmaker) should not aim any higher or farther than where the current receiver (current distribution technology) is, so now I'm confused.

To clarify, it is about passing to where the receiver will be, as opposed to where the receiver is. Basically saying instead of catching up with the present, aim for the future - so that the present will catch up to you.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

I forgot to say that Jim should right now invest maximum (money or whatever...) to get colors right finally just because the resolution and lightweight form factor war he had already won with Epic.

 

[Brian Petrie]

Even without projectors over 4k, they could just use two of them to create a 8K picture. Obviously, some development would be needed to make that work great but shouldn't be too hard for them.

 

[jake blackstone]

Even without projectors over 4k, they could just use two of them to create a 8K picture. Obviously, some development would be needed to make that work great but shouldn't be too hard for them.

For 8k you'd need not two, but four 4k projectors..

 

[Craig Ryan]

For 8k you'd need not two, but four 4k projectors..

You wouldn't have the correct aspect ratio for IMAX with only 4 16:9 projectors. Since IMAX is 1.43:1, you'd need 8k by 6k (6 16:9 4k projectors) then cropped to about 8k by 5.6k. Or more specifically, 8192 by 5729

 

[Tom Lowe]

It will surely be possible for Texas Instruments or similar companies to make 8K projectors. IMAX should take all the money they are raking in with these nonsense Harry Potter movies and invest it in new technology, if they plan on surviving as a brand.

You only need to look at companies like Blockbuster to see how quickly giants can fall.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

IMAX should develop at least an 8K projector, minimum. They should begin the camera development at 8K, hit 16K if they can. Or wait for Jim's Epic 617.

But IMAX can't be opening these rinky-dink "IMAX-lite" venues like they have in Burbank. Not a good idea.

IMAX should look into ultra large format LCD screens like a Jumbo Tron. Then they could distribute image data to an array of them and deliver even higher "projection" resolution. They would also be able to have a more efficient seating plan to get a bigger per screen average for the box office.

 

[jake blackstone]

You wouldn't have the correct aspect ratio for IMAX with only 4 16:9 projectors. Since IMAX is 1.43:1, you'd need 8k by 6k (6 16:9 4k projectors) then cropped to about 8k by 5.6k. Or more specifically, 8192 by 5729

Anything, that needs to use over two projectors is purely academic exercise, but yeah, six is the number

 

[jake blackstone]

It will surely be possible for Texas Instruments or similar companies to make 8K projectors. IMAX should take all the money they are raking in with these nonsense Harry Potter movies and invest it in new technology, if they plan on surviving as a brand.

You only need to look at companies like Blockbuster to see how quickly giants can fall.

Possible, yes anything is possible. IMAX doesn't make their own film. They had used an existing film technology (70mm film stock) and just adapted it for their own use. The same way I can't imagine TI spending billions on R&D and building a new Fab plant to service a single company- IMAX, no matter how cool it may be. It is all about the ROI...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Red themselves have said that their tests of Super-35 film negative show a measurable resolution of around 3.2K, if I remember carefully. That's a 24mm wide negative -- the IMAX negative is 70mm wide, which 2.91666...X wider than Super-35 film.

Ergo, an IMAX negative should measure to 9.3K (ignoring optical limitations).

So IMAX settling for 4K instead of 9K is a step backwards, no different than settling for HD instead of 4K for 35mm features. It's the same argument.

Or to put it more bluntly, if IMAX movies are going to be shown double the size of standard movies, they should aim for double the resolution.

 

[Deanan]

Red themselves have said that their tests of Super-35 film negative show a measurable resolution of around 3.2K, if I remember carefully. That's a 24mm wide negative -- the IMAX negative is 70mm wide, which 2.91666...X wider than Super-35 film.

Ergo, an IMAX negative should measure to 9.3K (ignoring optical limitations).

So IMAX settling for 4K instead of 9K is a step backwards, no different than settling for HD instead of 4K for 35mm features. It's the same argument.

Or to put it more bluntly, if IMAX movies are going to be shown double the size of standard movies, they should aim for double the resolution.

I wonder how the numbers translate to an IMAX print though. What we see likely drops quite a bit much like a 35mm neg drops after going through the print process.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I wonder how the numbers translate to an IMAX print though. What we see likely drops quite a bit much like a 35mm neg drops after going through the print process.

Sure, but that line of thinking leads to shooting features in 1080P, doesn't it? We all heard plenty of talk when "Attack of the Clones" went into production about how a projected 35mm release print from a dupe neg is barely 1K, so there is no point in shooting any higher than 1080P.

Personally, I tend to simplify things and say that it drops by half -- i.e. if you shoot 4K and it ends up 2K by virtue of being projected in a 35mm print (which is why 4K projected digitally in 4K looks more like 70mm, and why 2K projection looks like a 35mm answer print). But that doesn't make it OK to limit projection to 2K, let's say, just because 35mm print projection isn't any better than that.

So even if you want to believe that an IMAX projected print can't resolve on-screen much more than 4K (as John Galt has suggested) if the original negative is 8K, let's say, I don't think one should argue for a 4K standard for IMAX, not if the original negative can resolve twice that.

But IMAX used to project prints off of the o-neg, and if you think that a 35mm direct answer print is around 2K, then a projection format that is nearly 3X wider would be nearly 6K. So either way you slice it, IMAX should aim for higher-than-4K for lots of reasons:

1) a 15-perf 65mm negative likely resolves 8K to 9K
2) a direct contact print off of the IMAX o-neg probably resolves 5K to 6K, 4K at the lowest (and we shouldn't settle for worst-case scenarios)
3) IMAX screens are generally 1.5X to 2X larger so if 4K becomes the standard for regular movie theater screens, IMAX should aim for 6K to 8K
4) IMAX should offer a dramatically sharper image than standard movies, and if standard movies adopt a 4K standard, then IMAX has to adopt an even higher standard

I have no doubt that 4K photography blown-up to IMAX is going to look decent (judging by the "Pirates 4" trailer) but we are talking about a digital replacement for 15-perf 65mm photography, a negative format that is 70mm x 52mm -- we've got to aim higher than 4K or else it's no better than settling for 1080P as a replacement for 35mm, it's the same "it's good enough to get away with" sort of argument.

IMAX used to mean visual overkill in the resolution department in most people's minds, and it would be nice to continue the tradition into a digital future, really blow the socks off of viewers, give them a hyper-clear image on a giant screen.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Now if IMAX goes entirely 3D, then probably they aren't going to worry so much about matching the old IMAX resolution levels... I personally find it very hard when watching a 3D movie to really concentrate on the resolution level, my eyeballs are being so screwed around noticing dimension. I tried to spot the digital shots in the "Born to be Wild" IMAX trailer, but I found that the 3D effect was overshadowing the resolution effect.