IMAX Digital vs. Cinemark XD

[UFAlien]

A discussion in the 3D section thread for the new Underworld got me interested in the distinction between these two. Basically, I saw it in IMAX Digital, and another user saw it in Cinemark XD. We got different trailers. Here's what I've figured out, and what I want to know:

IMAX Digital (aka LieMax, Semimax, etc.) is a projection standard for digital movie showings. It involves proprietary DMR (Digital Media Remastering) technology that is said to provide better color than standard digital projectors. They use Texas Instruments DLP projectors in a proprietary configuration as well. Each IMAX Digital screen uses two 2K projectors running simultaneously. The images are overlaid, producing a brighter-than-average image. IMAX claims their image looks better than a single 4K projector, but there is much debate about this. IMAX also uses laser-aligned surround sound in 7.1 format, advertising 12,000 watts. The screen is usually (always?) 28' x 58'.

IMAX 3D is proprietary as well - each projector displays a single eye's image continuously, which is overlaid with the other. Linear polarization is used, so if you tilt your head too much the 3D effect gives way to ghosting and flatness. However, the resulting image is very bright.

IMAX Digital only shows IMAX-approved movies; ones that have been selected for IMAX Digital distribution and been through DMR. This serves as a form of quality control but limits the selection.

On the other hand, Cinemark XD is exclusive to the theatre chain which developed it. Like IMAX Digital, it is a projection standard. It uses a Barco XLM HD30 projector at 2K and 30,000 lumens. There is only one projector, providing potentially less brightness and potentially less detail (?) than IMAX Digital. IMAX does not advertise their lumens ratings for projectors, so a numerical comparison is impossible. The screen size is only described as "wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling", with screen sizes "up to" 38' x 70', implying variation.

Cinemark XD advertises "Custom Surround Sound", not laser-aligned or 12,000 watt (though I suppose it could be). No idea what their setup is, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1... who knows.

They use RealD 3D, which is circularly polarized, but since it's only one projector alternating eye view and polarization type at 144hz, it's theoretically darker and possibly less detailed as well.

Cinemark XD can play any digital movie, though, meaning there's much wider content availability - but it hasn't gone through DMR.

So from the sound of it, Cinemark XD is the poor man's ripoff of the poor man's IMAX. Of course, I'd love to find more specifics if anyone had them, such as:

1) Lumens measurements for IMAX Digital projectors
2) Whether each IMAX camera uses a different image in 2D showings to provide additional detail
3) Type and wattage of Cinemark XD surround sound
4) Cinemark XD screen measurements other than the max
5) Whether all IMAX Digital screens are the same size

And if anyone has been to both, I'd love to hear their opinions!

[Dubstar]

the difference between XD is no different from the other chains specialized large screens:

Rave Xtreme screens
AMC's ETX screens
Marcus Ultrascreens
Regal RPX
Galaxy Theater's DFX (Digital Fusion Experience) screens
Essex Cinemas TREX (Theatre Real EXtreme) screen
Carmike Theater's Big-D screens

there are others but generally all the screens are comprised of 4K upgradeable DLP projectors (IMAX-Digital is two 2K projectors). Rave and Cinemark use Barco single projectors. AMC uses dual-Christie projectors, this can pose a problem though if the projectionist doesn't align the two correctly. Not sure about Regal.

In terms of audio, the speaker layout can differ depending on how many are used. XD as I recall uses 12 speakers - but it's not discrete, there is a lot matrixing going on between the speakers. Most all of these large screens are equipped to playback 7.1 audio.

I love the Cinemark XD screen at the Egyptian 24 in Hanover Maryland - the light output is excellent and the sound excellent.

AMC's ETX screen at Tysons Corner Virginia, is a mixed bag, from wrong light ouptut settings between 3D features and non-3D features, to misaligning of the two projector's - it's a toss up if the projectionist has calibrated it correctly - I'm complained numerous times to management over this. The sound however - is downright amazing. Battle LA was staggering - the bass had so many tonal octaves it was literally jarring. The plus of the bass is that the theater literally rattles, most notably the seats and if down right, in your legs.

Rave Xtreme's screen, again a Barco projector, looked great, but the 7.1 soundmix of Beauty and the Beast (3D) was odd, I fault the mix not the system's speakers.

in terms of one of your question regarding IMAX-Digital screens, the size of the screen main deterrent is the allowed allocated space that IMAX has to work with - most if not all the IMAX conversions are done in pre-existing multiplexes - thus height is diminished considerably. Tyson's IMAX-Digital screens is around two stories high, which is ideal, AMC Hoffman's is on the smaller size.

[UFAlien]

Thanks for the informative reply! I'd somehow never heard about any of these before. I'm surprised AMC has their own system since they're so thoroughly partnered with IMAX.

[HowardB]

Have not had the opportunity to see anything in the other large screen formats as there appear to be none in the area I live. I have seen several films in the much reviled IMAX Digital format. I actually avoided IMAX for a long time based upon horror stories from people I trust (re film knowledge) re films they had seen which had been converted to 70mm IMAX.
These films had been cropped and did not fare well with the blow-up to 70mm and the huge screen.
The Digital IMAX at my local multiplex (AMC Neshaminy 24) has actually been a pretty good experience....excellent, super sharp image quality, and killer sound. There is a caveat however, AMC Neshaminy IMAX 24 has a 70' x 36' screen which is larger than most multiplex based Digital IMAX screens which can be as small as 40' in width. IMO any IMAX screen that is smaller than that 70'x36' isn't really worth the extra $$$.

Interestingly, film makers are now starting to film with Digital IMAX in mind, especially those filming using digital cameras. A good example would be the new Bond film "Skyfall" which according to DP Roger Deakins was formatted simultaneously during production in both the Digital IMAX ratio of 1.9 to 1 and the more typical 2.35 to 1 scope ratio (the scope ratio is actually cropped while the IMAX version adds picture information to the top and bottom of the frame). Deakins also was very clear that test footage of the IMAX Digital conversion was incredible while he wasn't nearly as keen on the blow-up to IMAX 70mm which he felt lost too much resolution.

[Snicket]

I do know that IMAX digital screen sizes vary wildly. I think of the ones in my state only 2 are the same size while the other 4 are all different.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by HowardB

Deakins also was very clear that test footage of the IMAX Digital conversion was incredible while he wasn't nearly as keen on the blow-up to IMAX 70mm which he felt lost too much resolution.

I saw Skyfall the other day in 15/70 IMAX, there is parts of the movie where you can tell that the resolution is not as high as in other parts. In other words, it wasn't all consistent throughout the entire picture in IMAX 15/70.

I have no problem with both digital and film based IMAX theatres, if the movie was not filmed with an IMAX camera, or at least a 70mm 5 perf camera, there is little reason to choose 1570 over digital IMAX

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

I saw Skyfall the other day in 15/70 IMAX, there is parts of the movie where you can tell that the resolution is not as high as in other parts. In other words, it wasn't all consistent throughout the entire picture in IMAX 15/70.

I have no problem with both digital and film based IMAX theatres, if the movie was not filmed with an IMAX camera, or at least a 70mm 5 perf camera, there is little reason to choose 1570 over digital IMAX

I disagree. When I saw Skyfall on a Real IMAX screen (using a film print), it completely blew away my viewing of it in a regular theater. I went back two nights later for another IMAX showing.

[42041]

I'm happy with the Cinemark XD screen in my area... bright, in focus, 4K projection, nice seats, decent sound...
I was less happy with AMC's premium screens, whatever they call em. It was rather dim, didn't bother with it again.
I see no reason to pay a premium for digital IMAX (if you have a nice regular theater with reliably solid projection around, anyway), which is just 2K digital projection, especially when the IMAX people apply their own filtering and enhancements on what the filmmakers shot.

[sonyfanboy]

I saw it at a digital Imax theater with a true 1.44 screen aspect ratio and a 50 foot screen. This theater temporarily switched back to a 70mm projector for TDKR. Any mini Imax around this size would have to convert to digital to accomodate Imax-DMRs only distrubuted for digital theaters.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by 42041

I see no reason to pay a premium for digital IMAX (if you have a nice regular theater with reliably solid projection around, anyway), which is just 2K digital projection, especially when the IMAX people apply their own filtering and enhancements on what the filmmakers shot.

Digital IMAX looks nicer than a standard 35mm in most cases and it looks better than most 2K or 4K setups. There is no need to spend extra on IMAX 15/70 unless the film was shot on 70mm. Otherwise the image is just a blow up.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Digital IMAX looks nicer than a standard 35mm in most cases and it looks better than most 2K or 4K setups. There is no need to spend extra on IMAX 15/70 unless the film was shot on 70mm. Otherwise the image is just a blow up.

That's not necessarily true. It depends on the prices that individual movie theaters charge.

I paid $10 to see Skyfall at the Real IMAX in Austin.

AMC, Cinemark, and Regal charge between $12 and $15 for Digital IMAX tickets, even though the screens are much smaller than Real IMAX screens. I would imagine that the extra cost is due to licensing fees, which means that Real IMAX is a better deal than Digital IMAX.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

I disagree. When I saw Skyfall on a Real IMAX screen (using a film print), it completely blew away my viewing of it in a regular theater. I went back two nights later for another IMAX showing.

+1. I watched Skyfall in IMAX and can honestly say at no point did I think that the picture quality was not as good as it should have been. It was as crystal clear as it could have been, and much better than the standard showing. That said, even the standard showing looked awesome.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

+1. I watched Skyfall in IMAX and can honestly say at no point did I think that the picture quality was not as good as it should have been. It was as crystal clear as it could have been, and much better than the standard showing. That said, even the standard showing looked awesome.

Did you see it at the BFI? If so, lucky you.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

That's not necessarily true. It depends on the prices that individual movie theaters charge.

I paid $10 to see Skyfall at the Real IMAX in Austin.

AMC, Cinemark, and Regal charge between $12 and $15 for Digital IMAX tickets, even though the screens are much smaller than Real IMAX screens. I would imagine that the extra cost is due to licensing fees, which means that Real IMAX is a better deal than Digital IMAX.

Which theatre in Austin did you see it at?

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Which theatre in Austin did you see it at?

Bob Bullock Texas History Museum. http://thestoryoftexas.com/imax/now-showing

The Cinemark and AMC in Austin have Digital IMAX.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

+1. I watched Skyfall in IMAX and can honestly say at no point did I think that the picture quality was not as good as it should have been. It was as crystal clear as it could have been, and much better than the standard showing. That said, even the standard showing looked awesome.

Have you seen the Dark Knight Rises or MI4 in IMAX 15/70?

I could easily tell that the image was not at the full potential of IMAX can show at, Skyfall was filmed in digital and the censor image was not bigger than a 35mm image, blowing up the film to full 15/70 will cause the Skyfall image to lose some of its potential.

Most IMAX 15/70 hollywood movies are simply 35mm/equivalent blow ups which are being shown in a super large format. The Dark Knight Rises 35mm scenes were not all that great, and thus no better than Skyfall. The Dark Knight Rises IMAX scenes are best you can possible see IMAX, and it showed.

I will say, Skyfall did look good in 15/70.....but it was nowhere near the true potential of what IMAX can do.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Have you seen the Dark Knight Rises or MI4 in IMAX 15/70?

I could easily tell that the image was not at the full potential of IMAX can show at, Skyfall was filmed in digital and the censor image was not bigger than a 35mm image, blowing up the film to full 15/70 will cause the Skyfall image to lose some of its potential.

Most IMAX 15/70 hollywood movies are simply 35mm/equivalent blow ups which are being shown in a super large format. The Dark Knight Rises 35mm scenes were not all that great, and thus no better than Skyfall.

I will say, Skyfall did look good in 15/70.....but it was nowhere near the true potential of what it could do.

Yes, I saw both of those at the same IMAX theater, too.

I would say that obvious CGI bothered me more than anything else. For example, during the opening motorcycle chase, Daniel Craig's face was painted on a stunt double's body, and it looked terrible.

I know that the digital chip does not match 15/70's resolution, but seeing it in Real IMAX was still better (and possibly cheaper) than seeing it in a regular theater or Digital IMAX.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

Yes, I saw both of those at the same IMAX theater, too.

I would say that obvious CGI bothered me more than anything else. For example, during the opening motorcycle chase, Daniel Craig's face was painted on a stunt double's body, and it looked terrible.

I know that the digital chip does not match 15/70's resolution, but seeing it in Real IMAX was still better (and possibly cheaper) than seeing it in a regular theater or Digital IMAX.

In theory, seeing the film in a properly equipped 4K digital cinema with an appropriate sized screen would be best, that would the best possible way to see Skyfall. I will not lie, Skyfall did look good in 15/70 but it is still just a blow up of a 4k source material.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

Yes, I saw both of those at the same IMAX theater, too.

I would say that obvious CGI bothered me more than anything else. For example, during the opening motorcycle chase, Daniel Craig's face was painted on a stunt double's body, and it looked terrible.

I know that the digital chip does not match 15/70's resolution, but seeing it in Real IMAX was still better (and possibly cheaper) than seeing it in a regular theater or Digital IMAX.

That, and the part where Silva reveals what has happened to his face. Terrible CGI and it really annoyed me. Also, a lot of times you could notice that it was a stunt double and not Craig. Ah, well.

[42041]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

In theory, seeing the film in a properly equipped 4K digital cinema with an appropriate sized screen would be best, that would the best possible way to see Skyfall. I will not lie, Skyfall did look good in 15/70 but it is still just a blow up of a 4k source material.

Actually Skyfall was uprezzed to 4K from 2.8K camera footage and 2K visual effects. IMBD says some second-unit footage was shot on the Red at 5K so there's also that I guess.