Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The IMAX Digital Experience

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » The IMAX Digital Experience (Page 2)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: The IMAX Digital Experience

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-21-2011 03:03 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I spell my name "Bobby," not the feminine version ending in "ie" or "i".

Well that's better than a couple of years ago when Ron called you "Booby" by accident! [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 12-21-2011 03:40 PM

A Bosnian friend at school is named Senad. One of the professors from China accidentally called him Saddam. Before then, he'd called me Christy a few times. Though he has an excuse that all these European names are impossible for them to get right. haha

| IP: Logged

Frank Cox
Film God

Posts: 2234
From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada
Registered: Apr 2011

posted 12-21-2011 04:11 PM

Years ago I used to know the Hogg sisters, whose father had named them Ima and Ura. (Really.)

Which is even worse than the triplets that I had heard about (but never personally met) named X, Y and Z.

| IP: Logged

James. R. Deeter
Film Handler

Posts: 64
From: Belton, MO, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-21-2011 04:54 PM

Bobby, Have you heard that Warren is looking to install an IMAX digital screen at Moore after the success of the Wichita IMAX ?

| IP: Logged

Frederick Lanoy
Film Handler

Posts: 88
From: North of France
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 12-21-2011 04:55 PM

There is one thing i don't understand with Digital IMAX. Christopher Nolan and Brad Bird shoot some selected scenes of "Batman " and "MI4" in glorious 70 mm 15 perfs. I find it's really great.

But don't they see that digital IMAX kills the film quality ? It's obvious that their dual 2 K projectors are unable to show the resolution of the original film. So why keep filming in 70 mm if it's so hard and expensive ? The audience will only see 2 K resolution on fake 1.85 screen at 17 dollars. And, now it concerns 80 % of IMAX screen. What an experience !

I refuse to see "MI:4" in digital IMAX and i refuse to see the next batman too if it's not in IMAX film. To me, IMAX will be completly dead the day the last 70 mm projector will stop.

To be acceptable "The digital IMAX experience" has to be really improved with 4 K resolution (at least) and laser projection. And quick.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 12-21-2011 05:48 PM

quote: James. R. Deeter
Bobby, Have you heard that Warren is looking to install an IMAX digital screen at Moore after the success of the Wichita IMAX ?

I haven't heard that before, but it wouldn't surprise me if Warren added on an IMAX Digital screen to their Moore, OK 14-plex or merely converted one of the two big screen theaters over to IMAX branding.

Still, it won't make any difference to me. I'm not paying anything extra to see something in IMAX Digital regardless of the theater chain presenting it. If the IMAX Digital theater in Wichita is successful it probably is for other obvious reasons: no film-based IMAX theater showing Hollywood films nearby, Warren Theaters has an otherwise very good reputation and there's no shortage of people into brand worship (IMAX brand worship in this case) while overlooking very important details about the product's limitations.

quote: Frederick Lanoy
But don't they see that digital IMAX kills the film quality ?

I'm certain Christopher Nolan and Brad Bird did not shoot the IMAX footage in their movies with HDTV resolution IMAX Digital in mind. They made it for film-based IMAX theaters. The few remaining film-based IMAX theaters that is. It's kind of telling when Nolan demanded the 6-minute prologue of The Dark Knight Rises be shown only in film-based IMAX theaters.

I think The Dark Knight Rises will be the last hurrah for the true, film-based IMAX format. Once that movie finishes its run IMAX, at least in terms of Hollywood's use of it, will be effectively dead.

| IP: Logged

Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 800
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009

posted 12-21-2011 05:50 PM

I think Mr Nolan loves real 15/70 IMAX and is doing his part to show off IMAX and 35mm anamorphic to the best of his ability.
Those remaining IMAX and 35mm done right screens will hopefully benefit greatly from this.

I would say there is still a good trickle down of quality for DCinema,Liemax and Blu-ray.

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 12-21-2011 06:38 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm certain Christopher Nolan and Brad Bird did not shoot the IMAX footage in their movies with HDTV resolution IMAX Digital in mind.

I'm certain Christopher Nolan and Brad Bird are intelligent filmmakers who were well aware only 30 or so of the 300 or so IMAX locations are still showing 15/70 when they decided to shoot their films they way they did, and with the understanding that another 3000 or so theatres wouldn't be able to screen as much information in 35mm or non-IMAX DLP (including most PLF screens) as even IMAX digital.

But again, I can only speak for my own theatre, which most definitely has a 1.44:1 image ratio in our IMAX digital house.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-21-2011 07:44 PM

quote: Jim Henk
Don't you miss the days when Joe would just come out and tell you what he thought? It must raise blood pressure to have to bottle things up like he's been doing recently.

What is the point of this post? Brad was right when he said in another thread that he was counting down until someone posted "Now tell us how you REALLY feel". I agree with you, though... opinions are a bad thing and we should be very gentle with them. We certainly don't want to hurt anyone's precious feelings. Sorry if I scared you by having actual emotions.

quote: John Thomas
I'll say that non-IMAX trailers do tend to sound horrible on an IMAX. Act of Valor is a perfect example. They EQ the bass really high in the trailer so it sounds pretty bassy in a "normal" auditorium, but then in an IMAX where the bass is already high it drowns everything out and gets positively awkward. I can't blame IMAX for this, really, it's the exhibitors who are choosing to use ugly-sounding trailers.

You're a bit uninformed about this. The exhibitors aren't choosing to use "ugly sounding trailers", they're simply programming the trailers they are told to. Those trailers are mixed with a theater sound system in mind. For whatever reason, IMAX has their own EQ so you can 100% blame IMAX for this. Playing those trailers in an IMAX auditorium will make 'em sound boomy. IMAX systems should compensate for this by having a normal EQ option available. But in all honesty the trailers should be run at a lower volume and without subwoofer. Is an IMAX auditorium even capable of such awesome automation? I doubt it.

I thought my hearing was maybe less than it used to be, but the super-high frequencies that rip my ears to shreds in Mission Impossible 4 IMAX and AMC's shitty ETX screen lead me to believe otherwise. Go listen to MI4 on your LieMAX screen. Listen to the gunshots near the very beginning. Tell me how it sounds. If it sounds "fine", then that means Regal is trying to cause harm and damage their customer's hearing on purpose.

quote: Edward Havens
Haters be hatin', Scott. Haters be hatin'.

That's right. We should be forced to like everything. Having a negative opinion on something is just wrong. Good call on that one. Now let's all hold hands, dance and sing like we have not a care in the world!

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 12-21-2011 07:49 PM

Funny but IMAX used to follow the standard house ISO curve for house eq

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-21-2011 07:57 PM

This article is pretty good, however it does say this:

quote:
The 70mm projector has been replaced with two Christie 2K projectors which use proprietary image processing. The two 2k images are projected over each other. The resolution is estimated to be about 12,000 × 8,700 theoretical pixels or 6,120 × 4,500 actually discernible pixels.

So I guess in a LieMAX setup there is an invisible third projector or maybe even four to six theoretically invisible projectors. I have tried adding it up over and over again and somehow I just can't make 2048 + 2048 = 12,000 or even 6,120. Maybe someone can check my math?

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 12-21-2011 08:26 PM

...wouldn't the pixel count be the same if one image is projected over the other..just that the two machines were used to just fill the screen with the required luminance?

| IP: Logged

Keegan O'Brien
Film Handler

Posts: 39
From: Eugene, Oregon, United States
Registered: Sep 2011

posted 12-21-2011 10:30 PM

Those resolutions are for 70mm, not digital.

Digital IMAX is off and on. The one in my hometown is fantastic. Incredible sound, perfect bass levels, nice and bright projection, 1.44:1 (despite the PJ's being 16:9) 4 story screen... It's great. However the other two I went to were horrid. The one in Bend Oregon is a joke. I imagine your experience was similar to mine in Bend. Terrible.

However, the minor aliasing isn't because of the projectors. I'm assuming it has something to do with the DMR process, because I've seen it on 70mm prints as well.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-22-2011 01:52 AM

quote: Keegan O'Brien
Those resolutions are for 70mm, not digital.

That's not the way the article is worded. They talk about the resolution in reference to the two 2k projectors. Also, those resolutions would seem awfully low for a real IMAX print.

| IP: Logged

John Thomas
Film Handler

Posts: 75
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Sep 2011

posted 12-22-2011 03:13 AM

quote: Joe Redifer
You're a bit uninformed about this. The exhibitors aren't choosing to use "ugly sounding trailers", they're simply programming the trailers they are told to. Those trailers are mixed with a theater sound system in mind. For whatever reason, IMAX has their own EQ so you can 100% blame IMAX for this. Playing those trailers in an IMAX auditorium will make 'em sound boomy. IMAX systems should compensate for this by having a normal EQ option available. But in all honesty the trailers should be run at a lower volume and without subwoofer. Is an IMAX auditorium even capable of such awesome automation? I doubt it.

You're right. I'm not sure why I felt the need to defend IMAX on that one. And I'm positive the hardware is perfectly capable of that sort of automation, but macros are pretty much on lockdown even with a "superuser" account.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

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.