IMAX vs. Christie 2k Super HD Digital Projectors

[J_UNTITLED]

Which provides the higher resolution/better picture: IMAX or a Christie 2k Super HD Digital Projector?

[WickyWoo]

IMAX by far. IMAX is 70mm film. 2k is scraping the low end of 35mm. 70mm has 4x the negative area of 35

HOWEVER

the film must actually be SHOT in IMAX, not an upconvert

[Brandon B]

As you probably realize, but J may not, IMAX is not just 70mm film. It is shot laterally and therefore a single frame actually has about 10X the area of 35mm, not just 4 like standard 70mm. Check wiki or another source for more details.

Oh, and we will probably be at 8K or 16K digitals before we effectively (what you see on the screen) equal IMAX resolution. A 4K does not cut it. The Christie is 2048x1080.

BB

[WickyWoo]

We're not going to see IMAX level digital projectors for a very very long time though, not in any commercial installation

And no, I don't believe any home needs more than a 1080p projector before someone brings it up. You can't fit a screen big enough to make a difference in a house, and if you can, you can afford a commercial system

[Deciazulado]

IMAX area is about 50 mm x 70 mm

While for example Super-35 negatives scanned at 2k Digital Iintermediates (Lord Of The Rings, etc) use about 10 mm x 24 mm = 832 x 2000 pixels

You do the math

[WickyWoo]

One of the many reasons why were I bill Gates, after buyin Universal, cancelling HD DVD and burning every copy of the new Battlestar Galactica, the 4th or 5th thing I would do is ban the use of Super35.

Oh and bring back Farscape

[Brandon B]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

We're not going to see IMAX level digital projectors for a very very long time though, not in any commercial installation

And no, I don't believe any home needs more than a 1080p projector before someone brings it up. You can't fit a screen big enough to make a difference in a house, and if you can, you can afford a commercial system

Define a very very long time. I give it about 5 years. We need them in my work for things like the Soarin' ride at California Adventure and Epcot.

BB

[Papi4baby]

Originally Posted by Brandon B

Define a very very long time. I give it about 5 years. We need them in my work for things like the Soarin' ride at California Adventure and Epcot.

BB

Im pretty sure he meant to say in a non-comercial installation.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Brandon B

Define a very very long time. I give it about 5 years. We need them in my work for things like the Soarin' ride at California Adventure and Epcot.

BB

mmm a 6k projection system (4000 x 6000) yum!

well, I'm sure someone can rig that up today if they throw the $$$

[WickyWoo]

Considering they just got up to 4Ks, no I really don't think anyone will be putting them in.

It's so much cheaper to just runa 70mm print right now, cost ratio isn't there

[darinp2]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

And no, I don't believe any home needs more than a 1080p projector before someone brings it up. You can't fit a screen big enough to make a difference in a house, and if you can, you can afford a commercial system

It is viewing ratio that matters. You don't need a huge screen to make a difference in a house, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person here with a screen 10' wide or more. I want higher contrast ratio more than I want higher resolution, but I still want higher resolution. A middle seat in a theater built to THX recommendations (36 degree viewing angle for the worst case seat in the whole theater) I believe that greater than 1080p would make a difference to many people with good vision (not even the best vision).

Even with an 8' wide screen a person could sit 8' back if they wanted to and that wouldn't that unusual a viewing ratio compared to seats in a commercial theater built to that THX recommendation. There are many seats in commercial theaters inside 1.0x the screen width. In fact, the middle seat would be closer than that if a commercial theater was built to that recommendation and the seats started 10% of the way back in the theater from the screen (and the presentation was the full width of the screen).

--Darin

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

One of the many reasons why were I bill Gates, after buyin Universal, cancelling HD DVD and burning every copy of the new Battlestar Galactica, the 4th or 5th thing I would do is ban the use of Super35.

Oh and bring back Farscape

Evangelize WickyWoo.. evangelize! Super35 is fantastic for TV. It's also the main reason I very rarely go to the cinema any more. If studios don't care about the quality of their film prints, that's fine. Just don't expect me to pay to see some blurry anamorphic print taken from a Super35 negative. Why not just shoot on 8mm and get it over with. Think of all the money you'll save! And I'm SURE no one will ever notice how bad it looks projected. While we're at it, why not get rid of DTS and start using mp3 audio at around 64k for theatrical exhibition? If we work hard enough, we can make the actual films look and sound as bad as the Russian cams available all over the net.

</end rant>

[Brandon B]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Considering they just got up to 4Ks, no I really don't think anyone will be putting them in.

It's so much cheaper to just run a 70mm print right now, cost ratio isn't there

Not when that print runs 50 times a day, 365 a year.

The only thing holding back replacement of film by digital for us is image quality and brightness for large format applications.

BB

[darinp2]

Originally Posted by Brandon B

Not when that print runs 50 times a day, 365 a year.

The only thing holding back replacement of film by digital for us is image quality and brightness for large format applications.

How far do you think digitals need to advance in image quality for you to use them for these large format applications? I'm guessing LCOS won't be able to get bright enough for a long time, so DLP or some other technology (like GDAV, if I have that right) being the most likely candidates.

--Darin

[J_UNTITLED]

Okay, so IMAX is the winner here? Got it. If it is upconverted though (or "re-mastered into the unparalleled image and sound quality" of IMAX), is the Christie better in that case?

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

mmm a 6k projection system (4000 x 6000) yum!

well, I'm sure someone can rig that up today if they throw the $$$

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Considering they just got up to 4Ks, no I really don't think anyone will be putting them in.

It's so much cheaper to just runa 70mm print right now, cost ratio isn't there

There is a single projector system that is 4000 x 8000 available. It is a tad pricey though. Would they build bigger? Yes, if someone went to them with enough $$$ and lead time and asked.

The issue is that cameras able to do 8000 horizontally are even rarer than these machines.

[J_UNTITLED]

...Anyone want to answer my last question?

[Brandon B]

Originally Posted by darinp2

How far do you think digitals need to advance in image quality for you to use them for these large format applications? I'm guessing LCOS won't be able to get bright enough for a long time, so DLP or some other technology (like GDAV, if I have that right) being the most likely candidates.

--Darin

I think we are getting into the ballpark with the new 30K lumen DLP D-cinema units for brightness anyway. A 4K is probably close (I stick my face in both the JVC and Sony demos at CEDIA). But I think 6K or 8K is really where it will happen.

But like Wicky says, the advantage for normal D-cinema just isn't there. But what hasn't been discussed (in this thread) is 3-D (which seems to be emerging as something for theaters to pin hopes for rekindled attendance on) is going to be done with single projector high frame rate S-cinema systems, not film. So i think you will start to see film phased out because of that, along with the usual other reasons.

BB

[Brandon B]

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

...Anyone want to answer my last question?

I think an IMAX presentation beats a 2K even under those circumstances. The resolution is just better. Same as the arguments for 480p upscaled DVD looking better on a 1080p projector than a 480p machine.

BB

[darinp2]

Originally Posted by Brandon B

But like Wicky says, the advantage for normal D-cinema just isn't there. But what hasn't been discussed (in this thread) is 3-D (which seems to be emerging as something for theaters to pin hopes for rekindled attendance on) is going to be done with single projector high frame rate S-cinema systems, not film. So i think you will start to see film phased out because of that, along with the usual other reasons.

Thanks. Just wanted to add that I get the impression the studios might start pinning some of their hopes of keeping pirated copies from being released right away on 3D also. If there were enough 3D theaters they could release in 3D only (or just for the first month or so) and if they protected their movie in other ways, the 3D could make it difficult to get a pirated version (since it can't just be recorded with a camcorder off the screen like a normal 2D movie). I think the returns for Beowulf are going to show how much more money a 3D theater can make also as the longer into the run, I think the higher the percentage of the take will be from those 3D theaters. I didn't see the 3D portion as a whole for this last weekend, but the IMAX portion in the second weekend was about 18% according to the numbers I saw (even though less than 2% of the screens are IMAX).

--Darin