|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Imax Forrest Gump ad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-15-2014 11:23 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
That is not true at all. You are incorrect. IMAX 3D film camera lenses can mount on the new 4K 3D IMAX camera. It was designed that way.
You're missing the point. How many different types of lenses (focal lengths, max aperture ranges, etc.) are available for that platform? I'm willing to bet it has nothing near the range of lenses available for PL-mount 35mm film or 35mm oriented d-cinema cameras. It probably doesn't even come close to the range of lenses available to EF-mount d-cinema cameras.
That's one of the big challenges in pushing d-cinema cameras to a larger than Super35 sized sensor. What lenses will be available for it? I wouldn't mind owning a $50,000 large format still image digital camera, but they're arguably limited in terms of creative choices due to the more limited range of lenses available. You couldn't use one of those cameras for sports or wildlife photography where super-telephoto reach is vital.
You're only going to be able pack so many pixels into an image sensor, shrinking the size of each pixel on the sensor before you start getting hit with the trade-offs of reduced contrast, reduced color fidelity, increased noise and blur increasing diffraction from the glass in the lens itself. This is why I think d-cinema cameras can get only so good as long as they stay locked into the Super35 size platform.
This is why I laugh at the idea of sticking a tiny 41 megapixel image sensor into a Nokia phone. Diffraction isn't going to allow that tiny lens to yield 41 megapixels of real image data. With pixels being so tiny the sensor itself would have a hard time even seeing that data if the tiny lens was perfect.
In order for mainstream d-cinema cameras to continually get better and better at some point the image sensor and lens system matching to it is going to have to get bigger. That's easier said that done.
In the meantime, cameras in the HDTV to 4K resolution range will get further refined, with the lower cost consumer and pro-sumer product lines continually adding more "professional" level features. Earlier today, Canon announced the EOS 7D Mark II. One of its factory features includes uncompressed video output via HDMI. That feature was previously limited to a series 1 body costing over $10,000. Maybe Canon saw all the people bypassing Canon's UI with Magic Lantern and getting some of those high priced features anyway.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 09-16-2014 01:40 AM
quote:
Every movie theater is "content reliant." quote:
'm out to lunch and talking bullshit? How do you expect a camera lens designed for a 35mm film frame to cover a much larger 5/65mm negative? That's about like expecting someone to stick a lens from a small mirror-less digital camera on a full frame DSLR body.
[Roll Eyes]
One example: Panavision has a different product line of System 65 lenses. They're not designed to work with 4/35mm film or digital cameras. They would probably work with a digital camera equipped with a 5/65mm sized image sensor.
Keep to the digital discussion. Future 65mm sensors will be able to window down to 35mm recording size, you will be able to mount a 35mm lense onto the camera and use it.
Also, nobody is exactly "doing well right now" because this is always the slowest time of the year. (Of course the news media forgets that every year and predicts that we're all going to fall into the toilet, until the big Christmas season numbers start rolling in and everything's all right again.)
Mike, what I meant was that IMAX has transitioned form a hardware/equipment/service first company to a joint revenue sharing partner as it major source of revenue. The majority of the revenue from IMAX is now dependent on film/box office performance as they are receiving less and less revenue from actual sales/equipment purchases. The IMAX digital equipment is not usually purchased by the exhibitor.
Also, IMAX is more dependent on the films than the typical multiplex chain. But you are right that everyone is content driven, but the financial performance of IMAX is very dependent on box office performance. If IMAX opens the wrong film and it flops, then they will really suffer.
I personally think the ceiling has been hit for IMAX in North America. China is doing well but North America has been tapped out as much as possible. The next wave of upgrades will be to upgrade the purpose built locations, I highly doubt the purpose built locations will be given the opportunity to joint a joint revenue share agreement.
quote: Geoff Jones
In another thread, one operator said he spent more money on two digital projection systems than he did on his house. How much will it cost theatres to upgrade from 2k digital to 4k? And then 4k to 8k? How about an upgrade that has decent contrast? Are cinema owners making enough to support those upgrades? If so, I'm jealous. You guys must be raking it in.
Well, if the 120 or more AMC locations upgrade their IMAX projectors to laser then I am sure you will see competitors like Regal or Cinemark upgrade as well. Same thing for their in house IMAX ripoff auditoriums, once one of them does it then the others will to.
Then you also have to consider the marketing. I am pretty sure IMAX will brand their laser IMAX presentations as something like IMAX Ultra or something along those lines, then there will be IMAX and IMAX Ultra which will force competing IMAX locations to consider and upgrade.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 09-16-2014 03:16 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm out to lunch and talking bullshit? How do you expect a camera lens designed for a 35mm film frame to cover a much larger 5/65mm negative? That's about like expecting someone to stick a lens from a small mirror-less digital camera on a full frame DSLR body.
Yeah, don't expect him to get back on it. In his fancy world of IMAX fantasy he can accuse anybody of anything but he will never be man enough to admit that he was wrong on any count. He's a troll, one with typical bad manners associated to it. The best way to deal with it is not to feed it. And yeah, I'm guilty myself, I keep feeding it. But maybe if we feed it enough, it might one time explode due to overfeeding.
Getting back to digital film cameras, my take on it is a bit different. If we want to see some real improvements in this aspect, we should let go of lens-interchangeability. Usually, I'm not the one to push for something new if the existing products are just fine, but they aren't.
This 35mm sensor design might have eased the transition between film and video for cameramen and cinematographers, but if we want to go further, we need to let go of that paradigm.
One thing that has been done for professional video for quite some time is an RGB beam-splitter design, effectively increasing color resolution about three to four times of the typical Bayer filter design. Such a beam-splitting device will probably never work with current focal lengths, there's not sufficient space between the lens and the sensor.
Also, CMOS cameras are, in my opinion only usable as film cameras with a physical shutter, not with an electronic rolling shutter. If we want to preserve the look of film, including the "blooming" effect a bit, then we should exclusively go for CCD sensors, with the added benefit of a truly universal, electronic shutter.
Effectively ditching all current lenses seems like making a big impact and for independent productions, this might actually be the case. But if you look at Hollywood, the cost for camera equipment and lenses is just a tiny fraction of total production costs. Plus, unlike many special effect rigs and sets, those cameras can obviously be used again. The bigger impact will probably be on the side of the cinematographers, directors and cameramen that need to learn to work with those new lenses.
Of course, I'm aware that this is a gross simplification of reality and there are many more aspects to be covered.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Well, if the 120 or more AMC locations upgrade their IMAX projectors to laser then I am sure you will see competitors like Regal or Cinemark upgrade as well. Same thing for their in house IMAX ripoff auditoriums, once one of them does it then the others will to.
The dominant chain in Belgium is already starting to roll out projectors with frickin' lazers attached to them using a bunch of Barco 6P projectors. Besides that, laser currently does nothing in the sense of resolution, it's still "just" 4K and although the system supports a much wider color gamut, DCI specs currently don't allow for it anyway.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-16-2014 10:21 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Getting back to digital film cameras, my take on it is a bit different. If we want to see some real improvements in this aspect, we should let go of lens-interchangeability. Usually, I'm not the one to push for something new if the existing products are just fine, but they aren't.
Interchangeable lenses are mandatory on any high end d-cinema camera, just like it is with professional level still image photography, but even more so. It's physically impossible for lens makers to create a one size fits all ciné lens for movie production. Too many specific focal lengths and aperture sizes are needed, with some aperture sizes being impossibly beyond the reach of any zoom lens.
Consumer level "point and shoot" cameras can have a fixed lens, even one that "super zooms" from a wide angle view like 20mm to super telephoto lengths like 800mm. Unfortunately those kinds of lenses have fatal trade-offs like reduced image quality, slow performance and very serious aperture ramping. I have a fairly expensive 70-200mm zoom lens that maintains an f/2.8 aperture through the zoom range. Unfortunately it, like so many DSLR lenses, are affected by other problems such as focus breathing and zoom tracking that isn't dead center straight.
CCD vs CMOS has been a long running debate. CCD sensors have some advantages, a big one being global shutter capability. CMOS sensors have taken over much of the market because they're easier and less costly to manufacture and can have additional functions built into the imager (commonly signal amplification and noise reduction). Canon has added "live view" auto focusing circuitry into the CMOS sensors of their new 70D and 7D Mark II DSLR cameras.
Rolling shutters still absolutely suck for any kind of video use. It's obvious imaging chip and camera manufacturers are trying to do something about this and try to stick with CMOS chips. Blackmagic's new 4K camera has a CMOS chip that has global shutter operation, but some complain the mode comes with trade offs of reduced dynamic range and reduced low light performance. Red has some new $4000 "motion mount" thingie that makes their newest cameras act as if equipped with global shutter sensors.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-16-2014 11:33 AM
quote: Geoff Jones
In another thread, one operator said he spent more money on two digital projection systems than he did on his house. How much will it cost theatres to upgrade from 2k digital to 4k? And then 4k to 8k?
It will cost plenty; will exhibition shell out more millions? They probably will not. And that's the problem with the whole digital rollout. It happened WAY too soon before the technology was where it should have been, i.e., surpassing 35mm and even matching 5/70 in quality so that for all those millions spent retrofitting cinemas across the globe, the results could have been a REAL improvement in what movies looked like when you went to a cinema (as opposed to sitting on your fat ass at home watching your TV). Digital was an opportunity to ADVANCE the art, not stagnate it to BELOW the quality that the existing film technology was capable of delivering.
The production and hardware industries were selling the Kool-Aid and the exhibition industry drank it by the gallons (and paid super big bucks for the privilege) and the filmmakers and audiences who now have to shell out $15 to see a movie got royally screwed and without so much as kiss.
Sure, digital projection technology will improve and possibly surpass the capability of film techology, but what economic motivation will exhibition have to dump more cash for upgrades or even replacements when there is no Damocles sword hanging over their heads like there was with the first digital conversion (no digital conversion you putzes? no product for your screen)? The answer is, Very Little, especially since they see that after years of watching home video quality on their screens, the public has been lulled into the idea that what they see is perfectly acceptible.
A few generations down the line and no one will have to worry about getting the "film look" because no one will remember or have ever even SEEN the film look. All they will know is that movies have always looked like. What will be the incentive for technology to look like anything but what it is....video?
We are in a glue mouse trap of "it's good enuf" medeocrity and it's of our own making; it will be VERY hard to break out of it. I mean, if we even will want to. I think the dunces at IMAX actually believe their own Kool-Aid BS. Seems human beings can convince themselves of anything if there is a strong enough incentive -- usually money or pride or both. When there is that kind or Orwellian Double-Speak, there is no hope.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 09-16-2014 02:29 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Interchangeable lenses are mandatory on any high end d-cinema camera, just like it is with professional level still image photography, but even more so. It's physically impossible for lens makers to create a one size fits all ciné lens for movie production. Too many specific focal lengths and aperture sizes are needed, with some aperture sizes being impossibly beyond the reach of any zoom lens.
I guess I didn't make myself clear. Sure, you need to be able to change lenses, as one lens obviously doesn't fit all. I was pointing at interchangeability between current 35mm lenses and some future "digital only" design with a longer focal length and possibly even other sensor dimensions.
quote: Bobby Henderson
CCD vs CMOS has been a long running debate. CCD sensors have some advantages, a big one being global shutter capability. CMOS sensors have taken over much of the market because they're easier and less costly to manufacture and can have additional functions built into the imager (commonly signal amplification and noise reduction).
While I do understand the concerns for semi-pro gear, we're talking about pro cameras here that have traditionally had a price tags in the range of luxury cars. And while it's nice for the semi-pro market that high-definition gear is getting more affordable, there's no need to cut those corners in this high-end gear.
quote: Frank Angel
It will cost plenty; will exhibition shell out more millions? They probably will not. And that's the problem with the whole digital rollout. It happened WAY too soon before the technology was where it should have been, i.e., surpassing 35mm and even matching 5/70 in quality so that for all those millions spent retrofitting cinemas across the globe, the results could have been a REAL improvement in what movies looked like when you went to a cinema (as opposed to sitting on your fat ass at home watching your TV). Digital was an opportunity to ADVANCE the art, not stagnate it to BELOW the quality that the existing film technology was capable of delivering.
Yeah, it was pretty clear right from the start that they weren't interested in improving upon 35mm, the whole intention has always been to push it as soon as it is "good enough". Some even were convinced that this 1.3K abomination that came before 2K was "good enough"...
quote: Frank Angel
A few generations down the line and no one will have to worry about getting the "film look" because no one will remember or have ever even SEEN the film look. All they will know is that movies have always looked like. What will be the incentive for technology to look like anything but what it is....video?
Electronics manufacturers will start pushing 4K and content owners will see this as an opportunity to resell your existing content at a "remastered" quality so they will follow suit. This will push 4K further into consumer markets. Exhibitors that don't want to be stuck with "sub par" quality will need to upgrade. And after 4K, the next upgrade will surely be around the corner, maybe a focus on a broader color gamut, maybe 8K, maybe HFR...
I'm not pretending that this is the best way, but at least there will most certainly be some kind of progress for years to come. The problem surely is where this leaves the exhibition industry and their capability to bankroll all those upgrades...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic