Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: IMAX Theaters to Ditch Film, Use Digital DLP Projectors

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Large Format Forum » IMAX Theaters to Ditch Film, Use Digital DLP Projectors (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: IMAX Theaters to Ditch Film, Use Digital DLP Projectors

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-22-2008 02:12 AM

The system at the Omniplex in Oklahoma City is really an Iwerks brand installation. The projection system is still a true 15-perf 70mm giant format system. But it doesn't tend to show IMAX-branded movies that were funded in part by the IMAX company. Guess you have to drive to Dallas or Tulsa for that until Dickinson puts in a cheesy "digital" IMAX system in town.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 03-22-2008 12:06 PM

Okay looking at the size of the 15X70MM area of Imax style it looks to me that it is somewhere between a Flat 1.85:1 format and the HD 16:9 format. So when they show scope pictures they either crop the edges or letter box it down when they show flat they either pillar box in or crop top and bottom.

Oh man looks can be deceiving measuring the possible area of film you have an approximate 9.2MM to 6MM maximum print area and assuming the actual print area will lose the same amount up and down and left and right the picture is only 1.53:1 so it isn't as wide to height as even flat.

Actually I have just a piece of black 70mm from where somewhere, I know not where, trimmed to the 15 sprocket hole size but that should still be right.

I'm sort of wondering where I and why and how I ended up with film. [Smile]

one ends up with so many odd things in 36 years of doing something!

Edited 03/22/08
Man just think if you did a 2 to 1 scope squeeze that format you could have 3:1 really wide pic. Actually not sure what the actual size printable area is so just judging from what I can see you could get between a 2.9 something to a 3.18 maybe but if you just squeezed at 1.5 you could have from a 2.31:1 to 2.38 and either of them would be plenty wide for a really, really big screen.

Oh damn I wish digital wouldn't happen just go back to 70MM and get better quality and bigger screens. That would make my duck quack!

[ 03-22-2008, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Ron Funderburg ]

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-22-2008 06:29 PM

Guys... there has only been ONE IMAX FILM so far as I can remember that was actually completely lensed with the Fisheye lens on the camera 100% of the time that was meant for projecting in Omnimax. Scenes in other films also included the use of the Fisheye Camera Lens but films shot completely with the fisheye lens can ONLY be projected in Omnimax. Omnimax also became popular because the theater footprint took up ALOT less space than a full size flat screen IMAX theater... in other words museums got more museum!

Mark

| IP: Logged

Jeffry L. Johnson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 809
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 03-23-2008 10:27 AM

What's the title?

in70mm IMAX web page
1570 films web page
LF Examiner Films web page

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-23-2008 05:39 PM

Mark said "Omnimax also became popular because the theater footprint took up ALOT less space than a full size flat screen IMAX theater"
Omni was created as an option for planetariums and the foot print is almost the same

| IP: Logged

Robert Throop
Master Film Handler

Posts: 412
From: Vernon, NY USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-19-2008 08:33 AM

So,has Imax completely dropped new film installation?
Bob

| IP: Logged

Mike Schulz
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 122
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: May 2007

posted 04-19-2008 03:10 PM

Wow, talk about saving lots of money. With this bleeding edge technology, they won't even have to waste time with a DMR. They can just shoot the regular 2k digital show up onto their IMAX screens and it will look the same anyway especially since they know their current customers can't tell the difference to begin with.

Maybe they aren't so dumb after all....

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-19-2008 03:24 PM

quote: Ron Funderburg
Okay looking at the size of the 15X70MM area of Imax style it looks to me that it is somewhere between a Flat 1.85:1 format and the HD 16:9 format. So when they show scope pictures they either crop the edges or letter box it down when they show flat they either pillar box in or crop top and bottom.

Both flat (1.85:1) and super wide (2.39:1) movies are usually letter-boxed when DMR-blown-up to IMAX format.

IMHO, the whole DMR thing is a huge waste. Little is gained from the IMAX DMR treatment of 35mm movies above using traditional 5-perf 70mm blow up prints. The 5/70 prints use only 1/3 the amount of film used to make one of those 15/70 prints. And with a little sensible coordination between film distributors and exhibitors those 70mm prints could be used on quite a few more screens. There's lots of giant-sized movie theater screens getting lit up with 35mm, but in rather dim fashion. The method would work well, but there's no chance of it happening.

I see absolutely no point in all in taking something shot with HD video cameras and blowing that up to IMAX. It's just as screwy as Toshiba's statements of late claiming 480p video upconverted to 1080p is an acceptable alternative to real 1080p content. Oh well, when things like "HD Digital Radio" exist and apply that "HD" term to 96kb/s and 64kb/s savagely compressed audio it seems to set lying as a good standard for marketing new yet watered down technology. Let's come out with something cheaper instead of something better, yet still have the audacity to say it's better.
[Roll Eyes]

Speed Racer will be the next IMAX DMR release. I don't know what standard was used in how the movie was rendered, 2K or 4K. But I hope they spent a bit extra to do the DI and CGI stuff in 4K. It would look less blurry and "upconverted" when shown in that DMR IMAX process.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-19-2008 05:13 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
IMHO, the whole DMR thing is a huge waste. Little is gained from the IMAX DMR treatment of 35mm movies above using traditional 5-perf 70mm blow up prints. The 5/70 prints use only 1/3 the amount of film used to make one of those 15/70 prints.

I used to feel this way, but I don't anymore. For me, DMR brings a couple of advantages: better-designed theatres, steadier picture (yes, even compared with 5/70), and _much_ better sound quality than I have ever heard in a standard 35/70 auditorium.

Whether this is worth three times the print cost and a limitation in venues is open for debate, however.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 04-25-2008 08:12 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Speed Racer will be the next IMAX DMR release. I don't know what standard was used in how the movie was rendered, 2K or 4K. But I hope they spent a bit extra to do the DI and CGI stuff in 4K. It would look less blurry and "upconverted" when shown in that DMR IMAX process.

According to IMDB, Speed Racer was shot in HDTV with Sony F-23 HDTV Cameras. I doubt the DMR process would do much to help it and I can guarantee there will be no 4k CGI.

| IP: Logged

Charles Greenlee
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 801
From: Savannah, Ga, U.S.
Registered: Jun 2006

posted 04-26-2008 12:39 PM

If the ads and trailers are any indication of the final release's quality, I feel that Speed Racer will be quite lacking, no matter what media it will be exhibited in.

To play my own devil's advocate, I am making judgment from TV ads and trailers, which may not be the best representations. All of our TV's at my house are non-HD, analog, CRT TVs. So take my opinion as just that. Though I'll still give it a chance, since I'll be able to watch it for free. And if it proves me wrong, I'll probably watch it again, possibly in IMAX if its that good. But for now I don't see where there'd be much advantage to be gained by showing it in IMAX.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-26-2008 02:23 PM

Speed Racer looks good in high definition. But so did Superman Returns. Superman Returns looked awful blown up to IMAX thanks to the original photography being mere 1080 HD format.

Photography flaws, particularly the lack of image detail, is amplified to an extreme in IMAX. These DMR movies are "IMAX" in name only, not in what IMAX was designed to deliver: very high resolution imagery on giant sized screens. The notion they're taking 2K and 1080p imagery and blowing it up to IMAX and throwing in the bullshit "digital" buzzword for good measure is an insult to anyone with half a brain.

If Speed Racer was indeed shot on video instead of film, that will just make me more insistent to see the movie in 2K digital projection on a more modest sized screen and avoid the IMAX version completely.

At least The Dark Knight has some actual native IMAX footage in it. Don't know if the 35mm elements were processed in 2K or 4K digital intermediate. Perhaps that may be known sometime soon.

| IP: Logged

Mike Schulz
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 122
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: May 2007

posted 04-26-2008 03:03 PM

The Dark Knight should have a 4k DI. I believe Warner Bros is doing 4k for all of their releases now.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 07-08-2008 09:42 AM

If that's true Mike, why Warner's hasn't released more films in 4K to theatres that can playback it as such is beyond me, as I recall Warner's has only released/projected 'Blade Runner' in 4K at the Los Angeles Landmark theatre, as did Sony's release of 'Dr. Stangelove' at the same theatre. I know that Sony has promised more 4K releases in the near future, but it would take another studio such as Warners to follow suit. The technology/implementation is out there, it's the distribution that's somehow lacking.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-08-2008 03:59 PM

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
The technology/implementation is out there, it's the distribution that's somehow lacking.

Actually its the other way round. There are not enough 4K projection systems to go piss in the wind about nor is that likely to change very much nor very quickly in the comming future. Distribution of digital content is set up extremely well, almost better than it is for film.

Mark

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.