Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Does IMAX’s New Laser Projection Deal With Kodak Threaten RealD?

This is topic Does IMAX’s New Laser Projection Deal With Kodak Threaten RealD? in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=002192

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 10-17-2011, 11:51 AM:

Does IMAX’s New Laser Projection Deal With Kodak Threaten RealD?

Source: deadline.com

quote:
Many investors think so this morning; RealD shares are down more than 7.7% in early trading. There’s no immediate danger: RealD has a few years left on its exclusive deals with major theater owners to supply their 3D-projection technology. Still, BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield warns today that over time “IMAX could utilize/license the Kodak technology to offer a superior 2D/3D projection system for traditional (non-IMAX) movie theaters worldwide.” For now, IMAX says it just plans to use the Kodak technology to improve images for its films on screens larger than 80 feet and in dome theaters beginning in late 2013. The company has been working with tech company Laser Light Engines to develop a similar projection process. But IMAX says that Kodak’s will “consume less power, last longer and have a wider color gamut.” Blending its current work with Kodak’s patents “puts us at the forefront of laser-based projection,” IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond says. The companies didn’t disclose how much IMAX will pay to license the patents from Kodak, which is struggling to shift its focus from cameras to printing. Kodak shares are up 6.5% so far today, while IMAX is down 3.1%. Still, with Kodak so desperate for cash, Greenfield wants RealD to explain “why did they not license/acquire the Kodak technology themselves”?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-17-2011, 12:57 PM:

This report sez the Kodak/Imax license is EXCLUSIVE. This could mean big trouble for RealD and the rest. I originally read that Kodak was looking to license its laser technology to all projector manufacturers. One would think that would have been more profitable for Kodak in the long run. But if this is indeed an exclusive license deal with IMAX, then that is a huge disadvantage to the rest of the exhibition industry, especially for 3D projection. This from Financial Times

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d1d5b46c-f811-11e0-a419-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1b3xAy2Ui

Imax snaps up Kodak patents deal
By Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New York

Imax, the Canadian cinema technology group, has struck an exclusive licensing deal for more than 10,000 projection patents from Eastman Kodak which will allow it to improve the quality of 2D and 3D screenings and convert its largest screens from film to digital content for the first time.

Neither Imax nor Kodak would disclose financial details, but their agreement could provide much-needed cash to the US group. The deal is understood to be worth tens of millions of dollars, according to one person familiar with the agreement.

Kodak invented the digital camera but has suffered in the age of camera-enabled smartphones, and concerns about its finances pushed its shares below $1 last month, prompting a statement that it had no plans to file for bankruptcy.

Rich Gelfond, chief executive of Imax, said the deal could generate about $200m in new revenues for his company if it retrofits all of its 80ft-100ft screens, which can currently only take traditional film. A typical film print costs $30,000 compared with $150 for a digital film, so the initial increase in Imax’s capital expenditure and royalties to Kodak will be offset by later cost savings.

The deal comes as cinema owners try to revive enthusiasm for 3D cinema in the face of public resistance to the premium prices 3D films command, and as the industry is juggling rival 3D technologies from companies including RealD, Dolby and MasterImage.

Kodak’s laser projection technology, which can show 2D and 3D films, is expected to be introduced in late 2013. It boasts deeper blacks, brighter colours and higher contrast ratios than rival options, helping answer filmmakers’ concerns that 3D films, in particular, can look too dark through tinted 3D glasses.

Mr Gelfond said he hoped the investment would help differentiate Imax’s 3D offering further, but that it would also help Imax’s 2D cinema clients as they compete with home video. “It’s going to give the public another reason to get off the couch and go to the movies, 2D or 3D,” he said.

Cinema owners have been investing heavily in digital projection equipment for smaller screens, justifying the upfront expense by the fact that the lower distribution costs allow them to show a wider variety of entertainment. “When we introduced digital into multiplex screens, the number of films we could show went from six a year to 25,” Mr Gelfond said. “Our largest screens now show 10 films a year, and I’d expect a similar result.”

Imax’s deal gives it exclusive rights to Kodak’s patents in the cinema market only for about 10 years, amid speculation that Kodak could sell much of its patent portfolio. The xenon bulbs that it uses in its current cameras cannot produce as much light as lasers without overheating, so “consumers are going to get a brighter, clearer picture than they’ve ever seen”, Mr Gelfond added.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 10-17-2011, 01:13 PM:

I assume this is the same technology that was mentioned in this article that was posted here the other day?

quote:
Kodak has also developed a laser-based 3D digital cinema projector. "Our system will give much brighter 3D images because we're using lasers for the light source," says Johnson. "And the costs of long-term ownership is much less expensive because the lasers last longer than the light sources for other projectors.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-17-2011, 02:10 PM:

I stopped reading when I reached

quote:
BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 10-17-2011, 03:23 PM:

The "other" press release SN posted here suggests Imax has exclusive rights to use this stuff on 80 foot plus screens. I expect that Kodak would not lose the potential revenue from licensing the technology for use on smaller screens to anyone with the scratch.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 10-17-2011, 10:21 PM:

Adam I did the same thing, this guy is such an idiot. Has anyone actually even seen a picture of him or video to know that he is a real person? Where did he come from, out of the blue he starts getting quoted in all these articles and no one had ever heard of him before....strange if you ask me.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-18-2011, 12:15 AM:

quote: Adam Martin
I stopped reading when I reached

quote:
BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield

No kidding. This guy is the Cindy Sheehan of 3D.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-18-2011, 12:24 PM:

And the native resolution of this laser projection stuff is?

Details like that are absolutely important. I don't care if the images are being thrown on the screen via lightning bolts from Emperor Palpatine's fingers. If the native resolution of BOTH the hardware AND the movie files being played are not any better than 2K or even 4K then I have no desire to see it blasted up on a 80' dome screen. I'll watch it on a standard sized movie screen at a standard sized price if the movie is good enough to even warrant paying to see in a theater.

15/70 film imagery was good enough to project on an immense sized, dome screen. Freaking HDTV resolution video isn't good enough at the same purpose. Being "digital" doesn't matter.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 10-18-2011, 06:58 PM:

Brilliantly stated Bobby. [thumbsup]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-19-2011, 03:59 AM:

I am hungry to know more about the technology. Someplace I read that with laser, the image is in focus on every part of the screen, even if it is deeply curved. How is that even remotely possible? This system uses a lens, does it not? Or does it? Actually from the first inklings about it out of Kodak, this sounded like it was nothing more than a very different light source, not a "system" that was radically different than the xenon that it would replace, i.e., everything from the lamphouse forward remains the same. So how does that keep everything in focus no matter where? I mean, GREAT if it actually can do that -- it just eliminates one more thing a HS, minimum wage earning "Projection Attendent" can't put his finger on to muck up; but how does it work?!

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 10-19-2011, 10:34 AM:

I think we're missing the bigger story here.

For the last 4 years or so, IMAX has been yanking out 15/70 installations and replacing them with dual 2kDLP. They started with MPX screens, then moved along to some of the smaller SR screens.

It has been assumed that the bigger SR and GT theaters were safe because DLP couldn't achieve the necessary brightness to illuminate such enormous screens. It sounds like laser projection is going to solve that for them.

Is this going to be the final blow to 15/70?

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 10-19-2011, 01:43 PM:

I think some also missed a very important point made by the President of IMAX...

quote: Frank Angel
A typical film print costs $30,000 compared with $150 for a digital film

.

I am assuming the $30k price is for a 15/70 IMAX print, but that's still not the important part...

quote:
compared with $150 for a digital film

.

I guess that ends the argument about how much it costs to create a digital print for a theatre once and for all.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 10-19-2011, 02:07 PM:

I'm not arguing the obvious cost advantage. Many of the GT theaters do not sustain high enough attendance to pay for the prints they use.

But, IMAX used to mean more than just a big screen and loud sound. It used to be about the integrity of image. Images so resolute that you could see individual grains of sand on a beach, leaves on a distant tree, or individual people in an aerial shot high above a city street. Well beyond 4k.

Now that IMAX has made the conversion of Hollywood films its core business, we have lost one of the greatest film formats ever invented.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 10-19-2011, 07:12 PM:

Mike, you forget one major point... that IMAX was in the process of going out of business sticking with its original mission. The nature documentaries and specialty short films (Wings of Courage, L5: First City in Space) were only getting them so far, even as they expanded IMAX in to more multiplexes. Had they not started the DMR program, they would have gone bankrupt years ago, and had they not switched over to digital and started phasing out 15/70, they would have been bankrupt by now.

Yes, the loss of 15/70 is lamentable, but it was also, like 70mm in general, eventually inevitable. Let's just hope that a couple brave operators keep their 15/70 units intact, and that some of the older IMAX 15/70 titles have archive prints, so that we can have the occasional IMAX 15/70 revival, much like the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood does with that now long-defunct process.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-19-2011, 10:45 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
I guess that ends the argument about how much it costs to create a digital print for a theatre once and for all.

If IMAX is obsessed with the cost difference between a 15/70 print and a reusable hard disc, then they deserve to go out of business.

Here's another key numbers ingredient to the equation. They need money from at least so many customers at the box office. Positive cash flow.

Positive cash flow is a much more important factor than the mere overhead costs of running the business. If there's not enough customers coming in through the doors it won't matter how much was saved ditching the film projectors and film prints.

I've been willing to drive considerable distances to see IMAX movies via 15/70 projection (mainly movies using the real 15/65 IMAX film format).

I am NOT willing to drive any significant distance to see HDTV resolution imagery blown up on former film projection based IMAX screens or medium sized screens that are IMAX in name only. If we had an IMAX Digital theater here in Lawton I would not be willing to pay the premium to watch movies in such a theater. The product isn't worth the high price.

If IMAX is making money from their digital scheme I think they're only doing so based on a public that doesn't know any better. If regular people knew what most of us have known for years they wouldn't be paying the premium to watch it. And then those savings on film prints would turn out to be a pretty bad thing.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 10-20-2011, 01:17 AM:

Great, Bobby. It's good to be principled. But principles don't keep companies afloat.

And for the record, my wife and I love IMAX 15/70. We love 70mm. We love Cinerama. When we were still living in Los Angeles, we would regularly go the Egyptian and Aero whenever the American Cinematheque held their regular 70mm festivals. My wife even volunteered quite a bit of her free time to keep the American Cinematheque website up-to-date, in order to learn what was happening before the general public. We moved within a few blocks of the Cinerama Dome, so we could walk there whenever they showed a Cinerama movie.We would visit the California Science Center regularly to check out any IMAX movie they played something we hadn't seen yet. And when we lived in Manhattan before that, we would regularly go to the Loews Lincoln Square to check out the real non-DRM'ed IMAX movies, be it Wings of Courage or L5: First City in Space or China: The Panda Adventure.

Enjoy your Quixotic battle. You weren't going to have much 15/70 at this point, no matter which way IMAX went. So remain bitter and angry over the change. Or maybe channel some of that anger and work to save some of the 15/70 projectors, to ensure future generations get to enjoy them the way we have.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-20-2011, 06:16 PM:

Hoodwinking customers isn't a good way to keep a company afloat either. IMAX can kill off 15/70 if they want. There's absolutely nothing forcing me to spend one cent on them either.

IMAX Digital is simply not anywhere near as good as real 15/70 IMAX. The IMAX company knows this, which is why they refuse to draw a clear distinction between "digital" and real IMAX. They know they're pushing an inferior product and are hoping enough customers won't figure out the difference. IMAX isn't IMAX anymore. Really they ought to just change to company name to something else.

Once IMAX finishes removing the last of the 15/70 projectors I won't care in the slightest if the company fails. They're already pretty much dead to me now regardless of the state of their balance sheet.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-21-2011, 06:55 PM:

I will be livid when IMAX takes out their 15/70 projectors down from the Smithsonian museums - wont the screen size also be altered since the image from IMAX digital projectors is 1.78:1 and not the traditional 4:3 ??

Posted by Keegan O'Brien (Member # 6539) on 10-21-2011, 07:17 PM:

It seems like a lot of assumptions have been made about IMAX's digital roll out. We know, aside from that it's a laser technology system, absolutely nothing about the new projectors. Comments such as - "IMAX Digital is simply not anywhere near as good as real 15/70 IMAX." , are, at this point, completely unfounded in relation to where IMAX is headed come 2013. It's safe to assume that it will be a 4K system, since IMAX has been looking for a 4K replacement for quite sometime, and the manager of "Evergreen Aviation and IMAX" informed me that 4K is being discussed now that they are being forced to go digital. He told me this a month or so before this announcement.

From the buzz of RED Digital's Laser projector, the color and contrast seem to be absolutely breathtaking, which is very hopeful. And, since it's digital, it will obviously be cleaner than current 15/65mm prints. My point being that's it's way too early to come to such rash judgements.

On a slightly different note, I'm curious about what Jonathan said. When I watched the MI:4 trailer in D-IMAX recently, the IMAX filmed scenes switched to 1.78:1, as opposed to 1.44:1, which left empty screen space at the bottom of the screen. My first thought was that it was simply because the system was formated for 1.78:1 since that was the aspect ratio of the feature playing, but Jonathan's comment has me curious. Can anyone confirm whether D-IMAX DLP systems are 1.44:1 capable?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-21-2011, 10:10 PM:

quote: Keegan O'Brien
Comments such as - "IMAX Digital is simply not anywhere near as good as real 15/70 IMAX." , are, at this point, completely unfounded in relation to where IMAX is headed come 2013.

Unfounded? Do you care to provide some specifics on how their "laser projection system" will show a projected picture superior in quality to 15-perf 70mm material? I don't think you can. Therefore, my "assumption" is 100% right on target.

quote: Keegan O'Brien
It's safe to assume that it will be a 4K system, since IMAX has been looking for a 4K replacement for quite sometime, and the manager of "Evergreen Aviation and IMAX" informed me that 4K is being discussed now that they are being forced to go digital. He told me this a month or so before this announcement.

Two things: One: 4K is NOT equal to 15/70 resolution. 4K only approximates what standard 35mm can show. Two: now you're assuming things about 4K being used instead of the ordinary de facto standard 2K. The vast majority of Hollywood movies are only rendered in 2K, even most of the ones shown in fake IMAX.

Let's have some damned specific numbers on those laser projectors. What is their native resolution? Every digital projector has a fixed hardware limited maximum native resolution it cannot ever pass. What is it? Further, what in the living damned hell is Hollywood ever going to do to render to this new standard is if is even any better at all than the current 2K (or maybe 4K, but NOT EVER 70MM quality) standard of resolution?

All those ass hats can say is, "well, it's DIGITAL!!!!!!!!!" Ignorant fuckers.

Posted by Keegan O'Brien (Member # 6539) on 10-22-2011, 01:49 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Do you care to provide some specifics on how their "laser projection system" will show a projected picture superior in quality to 15-perf 70mm material?

At this time can you provide specifics on how their laser projection system won't show an image on par or superior than 15/65mm? No. Hence, your assumption is just that- unfounded. You literally know nothing about the new projection system, yet you're making rash, bold statements as to how vastly inferior it is. That's silly.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Two things: One: 4K is NOT equal to 15/70 resolution. 4K only approximates what standard 35mm can show. Two: now you're assuming things about 4K being used instead of the ordinary de facto standard 2K. The vast majority of Hollywood movies are only rendered in 2K, even most of the ones shown in fake IMAX.

Considering that most information that is printed on to 15/65mm these days comes from a 2K source file, the resolution difference you're seeing from a 4K digital image of that same 2K file is slim to none. As for native 15/65mm images, of which we all know are rare, if you're lucky and you get a first generation print, you might be able to squeeze out 12K, otherwise you're looking at roughly 8K. Add in the juddering and scratches, you're in a neck and neck battle with the highest quality digital projection on the market, 4K DLP. The buzz is that new laser systems are even better than DLP; we'll see for ourselves soon enough.

Additionally, 4K doesn't approximate what 35mm can show. Super 35mm, which is "standard" technically speaking, resolves to roughly 3.2K. Anamorphic resolves to roughly 4-6K. That being said, by the time the footage is scanned, graded, printed back on to a film master, then scanned again and then mass printed AGAIN, you start to lose resolution, giving theatrical prints an actual resolution of roughly 2K. Add in the judder, scratches, and poor craftsmanship of a lot of today's projectionist, well, you know how it goes.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Let's have some damned specific numbers on those laser projectors. What is their native resolution? Every digital projector has a fixed hardware limited maximum native resolution it cannot ever pass. What is it? Further, what in the living damned hell is Hollywood ever going to do to render to this new standard is if is even any better at all than the current 2K (or maybe 4K, but NOT EVER 70MM quality) standard of resolution?

I would love some information, and more importantly, I'd love to see the projector's in action. Until then I have no opinion on how they compare. But come on, don't pretend 15/65mm's resolution will never be surpassed. I mean, just over 5 years ago 1080p was the standard for digital technology, now there's two cinema digital cameras that capture images at 4K or above (Sony F65, Red EPIC). The day in which digital surpasses 15/65mm isn't here, but it's on the horizon. In terms of projection, RED Digital and Kodak are both convinced that Laser technology is the future. Who knows what we'll get with it; it's exciting.

That all being said, I love 15/65mm to death, and will sorely miss no matter what happens with this new technology.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-22-2011, 02:32 PM:

quote: Keegan O'Brien
At this time can you provide specifics on how their laser projection system won't show an image on par or superior than 15/65mm? No. Hence, your assumption is just that- unfounded. You literally know nothing about the new projection system, yet you're making rash, bold statements as to how vastly inferior it is. That's silly.

No it isn't silly at all. Those who have been pushing digital projection technology, along with the movie studios themselves have a long history of lying to the public about the technology or at least misrepresenting what it can do. Case in point: the first generation of digital projectors. There was so much hype about how it was better than film when it wasn't even as good as 1080i HDTV.

The fact that Kodak and IMAX are apparently being mum on the resolution specifics is enough to justify suspicion. There is zero guarantee it's going to be some monumental jump above 2K.

Then you must add in the fact Hollywood is moving very very slowly at even adopting 4K. It costs more money and requires much more time to render a movie in 4K than it does 2K. The suits running Hollywood studios clearly believe 2K is good enough for everybody. That's keeping most of the "software" for these digital projectors set in 2K. 2K shown on a 4K projector or one with even higher hardware resolution is still only 2K.

quote: Keegan O'Brien
That all being said, I love 15/65mm to death, and will sorely miss no matter what happens with this new technology.

IMAX will have to do a lot more with their digital projection systems before I will ever be willing to pay the high price premium to see a movie in one of their branded digital theaters. As far as I'm concerned I'd rather watch 2K or 4K projection in a regular theater as a standard price.

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 10-22-2011, 03:10 PM:

From everything Iv seen and or herd the lasers are simply a light engine that is then pointed at 3 separate DMD 2K 4K or whatever resolution TI comes out with next. Therefore it would give better light and contrast BUT there will be no increase in resolution since its using basically the same DLP chips that current D-cinema uses. Please do correct me if I am wrong but as many before have said, 4K is nowhere close to 15/70 IMAX prints. Not to mention that the light output isn't up to the standards needs to light those huge screens(how many lumens does a GT IMAX projector put out with one 15K lamp?) not to mention that the current DLP chips are in the wrong aspect for 15/70 IMAX auditoriums.

Posted by Keegan O'Brien (Member # 6539) on 10-22-2011, 03:43 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
2K shown on a 4K projector or one with even higher hardware resolution is still only 2K.

Yep. Exactly. 2K shown on 15/65mm is still only 2K as well. Although, Roger Deakins firmly believes that a 2K captured image looks better when projected at 4K than 2K.

quote: Bobby Henderson
IMAX will have to do a lot more with their digital projection systems before I will ever be willing to pay the high price premium to see a movie in one of their branded digital theaters. As far as I'm concerned I'd rather watch 2K or 4K projection in a regular theater as a standard price.

I'm sure it differs by location, but in my experience D-IMAX has been cheaper than 15/65mm. $4.00 cheaper to be exact. The price hike from regular to D-IMAX for me has never phased me, since I do enjoy the incredible brightness, sound, color, and screen size of D-IMAX as opposed to a regular cinema. But, I won't pay for it for everything.

quote: Jake Spell
not to mention that the current DLP chips are in the wrong aspect for 15/70 IMAX auditoriums.

That's unfortunate, but after seeing the MI:4 trailer I suspected as much. Sad. Maybe this is what Nolan and Wally were discussing with IMAX before filming TDKR? They had several meanings discussing the logistics of D-IMAX last year, which I thought nothing of at the time. Perhaps they'll have something worked out by the time TDKR comes out?