|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The IMAX Digital Experience
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008
|
posted 12-29-2011 02:00 PM
Frederick, I'm referencing comments on social sites like Yelp where IMAX Digital screens like mine are called LieMAX because of the screen size, or the dozens of LieMAX websites set up in 2009 where the impetus is specifically on screen size and aspect ratio.
In fact, the whole crap about LieMAX in 2009 started with Aziz Ansari, whose post references a comparison image between THE LARGEST IMAX SCREEN IN THE UNITED STATES and the IMAX Digital screen at a theatre 3,000 miles away from where he saw his movie. Now, I don't know the size of the IMAX Digital screen in Burbank, which I am damn certain isn't as big as the IMAX screen at Lincoln Square, but then, there is only one other IMAX screen as big as the one at Lincoln Square and it's at its sister theatre, the Metreon in San Francisco.
I'd be curious to know what the average dimensions of IMAX 15/70 screens in commercial movie theatres were in May 2009, and see how that compares to the average IMAX Digital screen deployed at the same time.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-29-2011 04:13 PM
As far as I'm concerned "Lie-Max" is IMAX Digital, regardless of screen size. Furthermore, if a 15/70 film projection system is removed from a real IMAX theater and replaced with digital projectors I'm even less likely to see it there. IMAX Digital's limited 2K native resolution grows worse as screen size is increased. Screen size ain't everything, especially when the native resolution of the material being shown is in the area of HDTV resolution.
I would much rather see 2K resolution video projected on a standard, modest sized movie theater screen than see it blown up to giant size. For instance this is one failing of the 2 large screen houses at the Warren Moore 14 in Moore, OK. Their huge screens are just too damned big for 2K resolution material. They at least need 4K.
Even when film is involved, 2K generated material sucks ass when blown up to the scale of a real IMAX sized screen. I watched Superman Returns in IMAX at the Cinemark IMAX theater in Colorado Springs. The imagery, shot with a 1080p HDTV resolution Panavision Genesis video camera, looked HORRIBLE. Just one great big giant sized BLURRY image. The image resolution was so limited the movie looked like it was out of focus. Kind of like what happens when an amateur wannabe graphic artist "up-rezzes" a low resolution image in Photoshop. Blowing up that tiny JPEG to giant size creates NO additional detail. It just blurs in between the pixels and keeps on blurring. Pretty soon you just have a big, fuzzy, shitty looking image.
So. IMAX Digital really does need to stick to small screens, but it doesn't need the huge up-charge on ticket price and doesn't need to pretend it is the same as the real 15/70 special venue IMAX format. Digital has a very long way to go before it can even get into that ballpark.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Slycord
Film God
Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 12-29-2011 06:37 PM
quote: Edward Havens
In fact, the whole crap about LieMAX in 2009 started with Aziz Ansari, whose post references a comparison image between THE LARGEST IMAX SCREEN IN THE UNITED STATES and the IMAX Digital screen at a theatre 3,000 miles away from where he saw his movie.
The fact that he linked to a blog that likened IMAX to 'New Coke', all this clearly started before that. Sure, his blog brought more attention to it, but I remember this whole thing starting with the initial blog. And
And you'll notice that the comparison picture that Ansari used was from the initial blog. And to be frank, he was quite clear that the comparison picture was generally representative of what was happening at the chain theaters (namely, that these screens with height ~30 feet were being labeled as "IMAX").
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 12-29-2011 08:15 PM
quote:
No I didn't forget about that. I have never been very impressed at all with 35mm to IMAX blow-ups via the "DMR" process (something I have made abundantly clear in this forum if you would bother to look it up, Tom). Taking HDTV video and blowing it up to IMAX is even worse.
15/65mm film imagery is by far the best thing to show on real IMAX screens. The Dark Knight, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol and The Dark Knight Rises aren't 100% pure IMAX movies, but they at least have some native 15/65 originated content. I'm at least willing to go out of my way to see that.
I've never been enthused about seeing movies in IMAX that are nothing but blow-ups. That practice has been wasteful. It would have been more productive for movie theaters and movie studios to show standard 5-perf 70mm prints in key theaters. For each IMAX blow-up print they could have had three 5/70 prints delivering essentially the same image. Plenty of non-IMAX large screen theaters in the US could have used them.
Bobby- interesting response, but compared to almost everything that is coming out on standard 35mm these days, a DMR IMAX Digital movie blows standard 35mm away (Note- Just my opinion). With the odd exceptions (True Grit looked stunning), the standard 35mm norms looks like crap, add in the horrible projection standards (I know, not 35mm fault) and too large of a screen and you have a real crap movie going experience. I am not one to compare IMAX Digital to 15/70, I compare it to standard 35mm or regular digital cinema.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic