Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: IMAX and DLP

This is topic IMAX and DLP in forum Large Format Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000065

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-05-2000, 05:16 PM:

Yes, read the press release for yourself at http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/000605/tx_imax_te.html

Well, THIS ought to show how well digital imagery has progressed. Do they truly want us to see DLP on those giant screens?

A text version of this article can be read by clicking here.

Posted by Nicholas McRobert (Member # 205) on 06-05-2000, 06:04 PM:

I think it's all just bollocks at the moment, personally speaking. You honestly think they are going to be able to get an *IMAX* quality image on a seven-storey screen using a DLP machine? In 30 or 40 years' time, maybe. Imax are obviously just securing the rights to large-format DLP machine development so that if, and when these things come along, they won't be facing any major competition.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-05-2000, 06:46 PM:

All they have to do is to increase the size of the DLP chips to allow for the larger image and higher resolution. The present chips are almost as large as a 35mm frame so the larger, higher resolution chips are probably just out on the horizon a bit. I'm sure they will also be able to pack more mirrors into a given size chip as well. It is after all, new technology that needs time to progress...... not that I am in favor of it though!!
Mark

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 06-05-2000, 10:04 PM:

OOOOOOHHHHHHH SH*T, there goes the world I love, film that is......

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 06-06-2000, 12:29 PM:

It's very simple.

Imax = the very best in film presentation.
DLP = the very best in "Motion Data" presentation.

Imax is looking for a way to increase the utilization of their fixed assests. ie theatres. DLP may be a way, they don't really know.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-06-2000, 12:49 PM:

I think Imax is out to lunch with this idea
But they have made a few bonehead moves lately

Posted by Phil Connolly (Member # 465) on 06-07-2000, 02:47 AM:

The question is why?

DLP as a replacement for 35mm, the arguments given are: to make the booth idiot proof, to improve prensentation, to remove on screen dirt etc..

These points have been argued before, but I don't think they apply to imax. Most people have seen a bad 35mm presentation and if DLP improved presentation quality that would be a good thing. But, how many poeple have seen a bad imax presentation, I haven't. I don't belive DLP will be able to improve on the IMAX image quality any time soon.

Then why bother, Imax prints are large and expensive. But an imax digital video would be rather large and the very, very fast hard disks, needed, would be expensive. Of course I'm assuming that they would scan the film at the corect resolution and colour depth, but then they don't do that with 35mm at the moment.

Even with DLP you could not have an automated imax booth, so you would still have to pay an operator (IT buff, not film head).

I'm not a digital luddite, I'm all for it if it improves presentation or gives the same quality presentation at a lower cost.

For this to happen we may have to wait, a while.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-12-2000, 01:44 AM:

I've seen bad Imax's. At Seattle Wash., I saw "Everest." I have to admit it wasn't TOO bad, but there were noticable scratches and dirt on the film. Very disconcerting since the scratches travel sideways. (great movie, though.)

Last week while on my honeymoon, we went to the Imax theatre in West Yellowstone, MT (next door to Yellowstone National Park.) We saw "Wolves" and "Yellowstone," which are both park-related. During Wolves, there were little dancing dirt-particles that would stay in the picture for seconds at a time. This happened through the whole film! "Yellowstone" was not as bad, but there were still some scratches.

Add to this, there were brooms, dust mops and open-topped trash containers in view.

I was disappointed. This facility is only a few years old, and it's the only Imax in Montana, so I was expecting better.

On top of that, during the movie "Yellowstone," when the movie shows geysers erupting, the eruption would be accompanied by a booming bass explosion sound. Real geysers don't sound like that!

I have to admit, it is kind of silly to pay 8 bucks to see a movie about the geysers when the real thing can be seen within an hour's drive... but we mostly went because I wanted to see the photography, which in both those movies is outstanding.

Posted by Phil Connolly (Member # 465) on 06-12-2000, 03:15 AM:

Mike,

Well I guess I've been lucky on the Imax front, having only seen good presentations.

Everest did have some 'very slight' on screen dirt at both the Bradford Imax in the UK and at Sydney, but still much bette than your average multiplex muck-fest(or presenattion).

Posted by Marty Hacker (Member # 485) on 06-12-2000, 11:53 AM:

I believe DLP can do 4k x 4k resolution. Isnt that better than 35mm can do already?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-12-2000, 12:51 PM:

Marty:

The few dozen current DLP Cinema projectors use 1280 x 1024 DMD chips, and a custom 1.9X anamorphic lens for "scope" movies and a custom 1.5X anamorphic lens for "flat" movies.

Most experts agree that 35mm film needs to be scanned at at least 4K resolution to record all the sharpness of the film.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by Marty Hacker (Member # 485) on 06-12-2000, 02:27 PM:

I am so glad this forum is out there.
John P.:
I meant the resolution quality of the QuVis.... I hear it can handle 4k x 4k material. From what Ive read the technology of QuVis is very interesting. It is its own FTP and ICP servers capable of 170gbytes of mirrored data in all compression and bit rates. I think QuVis is ahead of DLP by a few years from the sounds of things.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-12-2000, 03:03 PM:

The Qubit is cool. It seems well designed and has a lot of potential as a video playback device for broadcast and special-venue applications.

But DLP as a replacement for IMAX? Feh! Even if it were suddenly possible to make DLP arrays that were 100 times larger than the current ones, presently available hardware wouldn't be able to sustain the necessary storage or data-rate requirements for an IMAX show, particularly considering that it isn't even possible to match 35mm 4-perf release-print quality with DLP yet.

Yes, DLP has and will have its purposes, but IMAX won't be one of them for a very long time.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-12-2000, 05:51 PM:

Every IMAX presentation I have ever seen has been SEVERELY lacking in sound quality. It just plain sucks. I think that they are afraid to turn it up.

Oh well, I'm not a big IMAX fan anyway since they don't release real movies in that format. If I want to watch something that is showing down at IMAX, I can just watch PBS. Same thing, only bigger screen.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-13-2000, 08:16 AM:

Marty:

The QuVis QuBit system is a DATA STORAGE system. It can deliver an average data rate of 76 Mbits/sec. for picture and sound. The Texas Instruments DLP is one of several methods of PROJECTING images from that stored data. They are not in competition with each other.

But as Scott notes, even with this wonderful state-of-the-art technology, the data rates and resolution are still far short of achieving film quality, especially for the IMAX format. The TI/IMAX press release acknowledges this, noting "there are a significant number of technological hurdles to overcome to develop a digital system that meets our standards of image size and clarity for IMAX theatres."

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 06-13-2000, 08:35 AM:

>>Oh well, I'm not a big IMAX fan anyway since they don't release real movies in that format.<<

Joe: this has been my main beef with the format, too. Oh, yeah I know, special venue and all.. it's 'an event'.. dah-de-dah, but the subjects rarely pique my interest. Oh, IMAX wins hands-down; the picture looks better than any on earth, but I'm underwhelmed by the rest.

Sumner Redstone discovered early-on that you can have all the technology in the world for bringing people images and diversion, but it means nothing without CONTENT.

You have to give people something they want to see.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-13-2000, 07:04 PM:

Well said, Tim! I am going to develop my own 24 screen mega-plex with nothing but IMAX movies---and they'll be real movies, too! The platters will all be 25 feet across to hold a feature length movie, and I'll have one teenager getting $6.00 an hour with no training to run them all! Who cares, at least I'll be able to say I have IMAX!