This is topic OK, so WHAT, pray tell, is IMAX Digital? 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=000165

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-01-2007, 04:17 AM:
 
I guess IMAX isn't impressive enough....someone's got to put the word digital in front of it.

Orlando' s first all digital Cinema
Posted on Apr 30, 2007 8:19:31 AM
(From this Monday Mornings Orlando Paper).
"Premiere Fashion Square goes all digital this week. The 14 screen multiplex in Fashion Square Mall becomes the first all digital theater in town."

"Years of promises, complaints about the cost of switching to digital projection, shortcomings in earlier projectors, and the like (I've been writing about digital jump for 7 years or so, seems to me) finally pay off with no more scratchy prints, scratchy sound, misframed films and other projection problems based on a century-old system Thomas Edison was right at home with." (Don't you just want to ding a 5in hub off the top of this writer's pinhead?)

"We HOPE it's all perfection from here on out. We will see, though." (Ok, a little redemption for that line, but not much)

More digital screens are coming online with each new digital release. Spider-Man 3 will be IMAX digital when it opens at Regal Point Orlando. (You see my delemma here, right?)

But EVERYTHING at Premiere Fashion Square will be digital from now on.

It don't mean a damn thing if it aint got that digital swing.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-01-2007, 04:55 AM:
 
edit:
http://media.seekingalpha.com/article/20269

IMAX is transitioning to digital.
 

---

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 05-01-2007, 04:04 PM:
 
I always assumed that the founding Father's of the Imax system was for the Ultimate Big Screen experience, and that was 15/70mm (world's largest format).

First Imax has be dump down with DMR Blow-Ups and now Digital Cinema .

Perhaps now it should be renamed DMAX?.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 05-02-2007, 04:41 AM:
 
Somebody at the paper didn't bother to fact check. The Point Orlando theatre is a standard IMAX GT.

The rumor I've heared is that Ruben H Fleet center, which has IMAX projector serial number 002, will be getting the first IMAX Digital projector.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-02-2007, 03:30 PM:
 
Well, it really sounds like they are agressively going to move to digital. When you read the print cost factor, you can see why, but on the other hand, they'd better be sure they can still get the resolution that distinguishes them as IMAX or they will wind up a totally different animal. Many people said they lost their soul when they rolled out the IMAX-mini concept. If that was loosing it's soul, going digital will be sending it to the lowest depths of hell.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-02-2007, 03:51 PM:
 
What is the resolution of an IMAX digital projector?
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-02-2007, 04:00 PM:
 
According to the source above, it employs two Sony 4K projectors.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-02-2007, 08:01 PM:
 
So basically the "IMAX Digital" image resolution will be roughly equivalent to two 1.85:1 35mm film frames? Funny thing is 15-perf 70mm is about 10 times that size.

16K scans don't even address the full resolution potential of 15/70 material.

It's kind of sad the comments in that news article were all pretty slanted in the direction of money. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't spot anyone issuing concerns about whether two Sony 4K digital projectors could realistically equal the brightness and ultra high resolution of true 15/70 photography and projection. Overall, this deal just sounds like a way to save a buck and greatly water down the IMAX concept.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 05-02-2007, 11:07 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-02-2007, 11:19 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

It's kind of sad the comments in that news article were all pretty slanted in the direction of money.

---

Same with everything else today. It used to be people made quality products in the hopes of making money down the road. Today its all about the next quarterly statement. Quality be damned. "Maximizing shareholders value" trumps maximizing quality presentations. The unfortunate thing is, I'm not sure many people even care anymore.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-03-2007, 09:27 AM:
 
And that lack of ethic will be the thing which eventually removes the United States from its position as the world's prominent economic and cultural power. At some point all this "good enough" crap is going to bite us in the ass. Actually, it's already been doing that in a number of formerly American-dominated industries. We'll just keep adding to the list.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 05-03-2007, 06:46 PM:
 
Presumably this would have a huge imapct on the market for 65mm negative and 70mm print film in the future, if their 2x4K system is successfully deployed. Although acquisition might still have to be 65mm for the forseeable future. Any comments on this side of things?
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 05-03-2007, 08:11 PM:
 
Lets just hope that this is reserved for the Hollywood blow ups. I don't think this technology could possibly be good enough for replicating the full academy 15/70 frame.
I do think that if the 8k IMAX digital image was used for the dmx blow up only, concentrated on the 2/3 area down the screen in a cinema like wide screen frame it may be similar to the image quality currently used and would make financial sense.
If the 8k was used to fill the whole screen, Hollywood blockbusters would only be using 4k for their presentation, less for scope. Providing no advantage over a similar equipped regular multiplex screen of the future.
Lets hope that to some degree that "The Dream Is Still Alive" @ imax head office.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-03-2007, 10:21 PM:
 
Do two overlapping 4K projectors give you 8k resolution? I think it's only to increase brightness, not resolution.
 

---

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 05-04-2007, 04:04 AM:
 

quote: Paul Linfesty

---

Do two overlapping 4K projectors give you 8k resolution?

---

There's a common misconception when referring to resolutions such as 2K and that one is simply double the other. The "#K" designation is just a simple way to specify what native resolution of the chip is.
In reference to D-cinema "#K" is referring to a rough number of vertical lines of native resolution of the chip. This number also also assumes that an aspect ratio in the ballpark of 1.89:1 is maintained. Technically 2K DLP is actually 2.048K, and 4K SXRD is 4.096K. The pixel area of 2K is 2048x1080, whereas 4K is 4096x2160. This would mean that 4K has 4 times the pixels as 2K. "8K" would carry 4x the pixes as 4K, or 16x the pixels of 2K.

In relation to the digital IMAX thing, using 2 4K projectors side-by-side with images overlapping will only still give you 4K.
I'm not sure what I think about this. Trying to create a digital technology that matches 15/70 is going to take much more than what 2 4K projectors can offer.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 05-04-2007, 09:20 AM:
 
thank you for that explaination. I am still confused about what the hell they are doing.

quote:

---

we started working on finding technologies that would let us align multiple digital images into one seamless image that takes advantage of the unique IMAX geometry. Today, we believe the combination of improving third-party technologies overlaid with IMAX IP makes this the correct time to build the system and implement an ’08 product launch.

---