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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Imax Digital (Page 3)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

Author Topic: Imax Digital Andres Briano Expert Film Handler Posts: 162 From: Buenos Aires, Argentina Registered: Jan 2008 posted 10-06-2008 07:16 AM                        quote: "Ask me about Trajan" They could call it "IMAX-D" with the "D" standing for "diet." Unfortunately, Imax´s CEO has destroyed all hopes for that. For me, that would be the way to go. IMAX: "Think Big PROBLEMS" (Used with kind permission from cinemamap)  |  IP: Logged Tristan Lane Master Film Handler Posts: 444 From: Nampa, Idaho Registered: Feb 2002 posted 10-07-2008 12:05 PM                     quote: Well I have seen an Imax digital installed & yes I have operated one. First look it is quite impressive! Did you see this presentation in a true large-format IMAX house, or a reconditioned multiplex theater? I ask simply because of the screen size. Is the digital presentation filling 100% of the screen area like 15/70 did? I don't see how 2K could manage to look good on a full-size IMAX screen (GT or SR size)  |  IP: Logged Fred Tucker Film Handler Posts: 90 From: Sugar Land, TX Registered: Sep 2007 posted 10-07-2008 08:36 PM                     Screen was 56' x 34'. It most deffinately is not a 15/70 but it is 4k resloution & Imax states that a DMR blow up is 7k (third hand info). 12,000 watts woth of light goes a LONG way in providing a great picture. IMO in beats 35mm film & 2k DLP in picture quality and brightness.  |  IP: Logged Tristan Lane Master Film Handler Posts: 444 From: Nampa, Idaho Registered: Feb 2002 posted 10-08-2008 11:53 AM                     quote: Fred Tucker but it is 4k resloution Are you sure? I thought that the IMAX digital system was utilizing 2 2K projectors. Even with 2 2K projectors, it's no surprise that it looked good on a 34 x 56 screen. That screen size is no where close to a true IMAX large format screen.  |  IP: Logged Fred Tucker Film Handler Posts: 90 From: Sugar Land, TX Registered: Sep 2007 posted 10-13-2008 04:22 AM                     It is 2 2k projectors side by side to make 4k resolution. There is a camera between the two portglasses that lines everything up.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 10-13-2008 04:45 AM                        Two 2Ks can only "double" the resolution in one dimension only, either height or width, not both. That's not even as good as a real 4k projector. Epic fail.  |  IP: Logged Cameron Glendinning Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 845 From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia Registered: Dec 2005 posted 10-13-2008 06:34 AM                     quote: Fred Tucker Screen was 56' x 34' Now thats pretty much a 16 x 9 sort of shape, if 2 projectors are next to each other, wouldnt it be more a 32 x 9 sort of shape if stiched. Is it possible that the projectors are simply 2k left eye, right eye configeration? not 3k or 4k etc  |  IP: Logged Dick Vaughan Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1032 From: Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK Registered: Jul 2000 posted 10-13-2008 03:20 PM                        As I've said before IMAX digital has a 1.9:1 aspect ratio. the two projectors are effectively superimposed but with pixel off set to fill in the gaps.  |  IP: Logged Tristan Lane Master Film Handler Posts: 444 From: Nampa, Idaho Registered: Feb 2002 posted 10-13-2008 08:15 PM                     Superimposed? So the effective resolution of the system still sits at 2K. The only advantage being the ability to projecto dual projector 3D. quote: Fred Tucker There is a camera between the two portglasses that lines everything up. Huh? Are you saying that this system actively adjusts the picture alignment?  |  IP: Logged Cameron Glendinning Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 845 From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia Registered: Dec 2005 posted 10-14-2008 03:52 AM                     Thankyou Dick, thats very interesting.  |  IP: Logged Fred Tucker Film Handler Posts: 90 From: Sugar Land, TX Registered: Sep 2007 posted 10-16-2008 02:27 AM                     Yes the system actively adjusts for alignment. Every morning when you turn the power on it goes through calibration sequence. Kind of a necessity since you have to move a projector to change the lamp and then move it back into perfect alignment. Its all automatic, just log in and press power up. Really sensitive too, have to dim the lights in the auditorium, if any "extra" light is on the screen the calibration fails and it goes back to the previous days calibration. After some debaing with technicians I hve to agree that this is still 2k, the pixels are stacked ontop of one another and no interlaced to fill in the gaps. Or so I have been told. All I know is it puts the butts in the seats, looks good on screen and has been trouble free thus far. SHould I ever have trouble, IMAX has great tech support and since it uses Christie projectors there are local techs available.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-16-2008 07:57 AM                        So they abandoned the deal with Sony 4K units? 2K IMAX.....geeez.  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 10-16-2008 10:19 AM                     The big question is why the need for the two projectors (for 2D) on a 56 foot screen when Christie makes a projector that can light a 75 foot screen? If IMAX really wanted to make IMAX digital, they should have used their alignment technology for an array of four 4k (or 16 2k) projectors to make an 8k picture. They could utilize much cheaper individual projectors becuase each projector would not need that much light output since the screen is divided up. I guess 16 $25,000 projectors get's a bit pricey at $400,000 but is it that much more than an IMAX film projector? Plus with the digital projectors, triple-flash 3D can be done so there is no need for more projectors for 3D. To match the quality of true IMAX 15/70 you'd really probably need to make it a 12k image but the 36 2k projectors you'd need would get prohibitively expensive and I don't think would fit in the booth. 9 4k projectors would at least be feasible. I guess to get the full IMAX height, you'd need 3 more projectors for height though (and then not utilize some of the available pixels). Still from an engineering standpoint, 12 projectors mounted in an array would work. If combined with automatic alignment and calibration software you'd be able to reproduce the quality (except maybe the contrast) of real IMAX using available digital technology.  |  IP: Logged Fred Tucker Film Handler Posts: 90 From: Sugar Land, TX Registered: Sep 2007 posted 10-17-2008 07:54 AM                     IMAX asked me the other day for 3 positices and 3 negatives about the system. What I said to them was: Best 3: 1.) Digital projector system that we are familiar with already & local technicians are available via Christie. 2.) Fantastic bass & crystal clear sound. I would buy a ticket and wear a blindfold if it was a concert. 3.) Multi level user access of the SMS prevents booth personnel from playing around, granted being the projection manager I can see instances where this may be a problem with changing lamps or when the Internet is down and IMAX is unable to remote access. Worst 3: 1.) In 2D mode what is point of running 2 projectors if the image is stacked pixel on top of pixel and not filling in the gaps. (Correct me if I am wrong) Lots of bulb hours wasted here if its not really necessary, last I checked Christie made a CP2000 that could light a 75' screen and we have a 56' screen. I could see doing this IF the pixels were staggered to project 4k but that is impossible as you could only fill either horizontally or vertically but not both. 2.) Bass while fantastic bleeds into the auditorium next door, more sound insulation needed. Having to run at -3dB to accommodate thereby lessening the experience. 3.) Why not Sony 4k like was initially rumored? Better picture quality and with pixel on pixel stacking like you currently have plenty of light. Granted when IMAX was still in R&D the Sony 4k projectors were probably a lamp design increasing maintenance costs even higher. Extra.) Why not stack the units on top of one another? Christie has the base (or at least Sanyo makes one for Christie) facilitating easier lamp changes. THe reply I got back was that 2 projectors are used inoreder to improve contrast. Personally when I cover a projector lens with a folder I do not see a difference other than maybe 2 fl dimmer. The tech I have been dealing with has no clue why R&D did not end up with a stacked system, but he knows one was built for research. He also states that he would have referred to see Sony 4k used bt they simply were not ready.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-17-2008 08:30 AM                     quote: Fred Tucker Why not stack the units on top of one another? Christie has the base (or at least Sanyo makes one for Christie) facilitating easier lamp changes. Actually Christie stopped supplying the stacking rack. They said it was a conflict of interest with Real-D. Stacking racks are easy to fabricate out of off the shelf alumnium extrusion. I am in the process of building one at the moment, its not too difficult. The idea of running multiple projectors to fill a giant screen would still have been the best route for them to go. You can adjust the scan areas opnn these projectors to the exact pixel! Also Coloremitry, and brightness would not have been an issue either. Sony is doing just that with the their new 3-D projector where they are using the 4K chips to project 2-2K squeezed images... then put back on the screen with a lens not unlike the Stereovision 3-D lens. Mark  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.