Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Jeff Kleist]

Would the IMAX 3D version be film or Digital and if film, is the resolution 35mm grade or better?

Depends on whether it's a real IMAX or not. A real IMAX uses 65mm film run sideways. The fake IMAXes you're finding in a lot of AMC theaters these days feature a slightly larger screen than normal and digital projection

If the screen isn't the size of your house, it's not a real IMAX is a good rule of thumb

Either way, it's just a blowup, and the IMAX 3D and Digital 3D are essentially the same

[SpaceDog]

I heard the Imax has the frame opened up more than the digital 3d version. Is this not the case?
If that's not the case, the only benefit the Imax has is size, as the theaters around here have yet to provide digital on their largest screens.

[Jeff Kleist]

I haven't seen it in IMAX so I can't say. If you're talking in general, then no, it just looks larger

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Either way, it's just a blowup, and the IMAX 3D and Digital 3D are essentially the same

But wouldn't true IMAX, shot on 65 mm running on its side, have higher resolution and a significantly different "feel" that digital blown up to the same approx. area?

Was AVATAR shot on 65mm running on its side? For IMAX 3D, do they split the frame to register the left eye and right eye images separately? Or do they have every other frame left, and every in-between frame right? Or What?

[Jeff Kleist]

No Avatar was not shot IMAX. It was shot digitally on a PACE Fusion 3D camera and a 2K DI process

There are no movies that are 100% IMAX, nor are there any in production (At least until Batman Begins Yet Again if all goes well)

I'm not positive as to exactly how IMAX 3D works, only that it's a polarized process same as RealD

[Vincent Pereira]

I saw AVATAR in IMAX 3-D (i.e., the real, 15-perf 70mm IMAX) at the gigantic IMAX theater in Lincoln Center last month. The aspect ratio looked to be almost exactly 1.78:1, with the image set down on the screen with black at the top, but the image extending all the way to the bottom. Oddly, it didn't quite fill the screen entirely side-to-side, there was a bit of black on the left/right too. This in contrast to the last IMAX presentation I saw there, THE DARK KNIGHT in summer 2008 which always filled the screen entirely side-to-side, and of course filled it entirely top-and-bottom too during the "true" IMAX scenes.

That being said, I was amazed at how good AVATAR looked blown up that big. They must have some really great upconversion algorythms to make this HD shot stuff look that good on a screen that big. But, I have to say, even with the "advantage" of AVATAR being 3D, THE DARK KNIGHT was definitely more "enveloping" during the IMAX material on that screen.

Vincent

[Jeff Kleist]

Honestly, I thought the IMAX photography was even more special than 3D. If I have to choose, 70mm me every time

The upconversion algorithmns even 5 years ago were nasty. every exposition scene would have a grain freeze going on until somone moved a little too fast, then a beehive would erupt out of nowhere. They've really smoothed things out, I still don't see any point in dropping $15 to see an IMAX version (Digital 3D was 12) for a blowup.

I did see a brand new dye-transfer print of Alien in the IMAX theater though, during the last reissue (35mm projection)

That was very very nice, shown in the proper 2.35:1 area of course

[Agent Simth]

Jeff, is there any chance that we will get Scarface this year?

[Jeff Kleist]

It's not on my radar, I don't know either way

[Agent Simth]

Thanks Jeff and one more thing when the Indiana Jones Trilogy is released are they going to put all four moives together or just the first three?

[Jeff Kleist]

I don't think that's been decided yet

If I were Lucasfilm, I would ship the 3 discs with a placeholder for #4, and make sure that the spines match

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Honestly, I thought the IMAX photography was even more special than 3D. If I have to choose, 70mm me every time
...

I agree 100%, but I disagree re: there being no point to seeing an IMAX blow-up. AVATAR was pretty damn spectacular being shown on a screen that large, and neither the current digital systems nor 35mm projection can withstand being projected that large. Like the 35mm-to-70mm blow-ups of past, it's clearly not as good as real IMAX, but it's still better than standard 35mm or digital projection IMO.

Vincent

[Jeff Kleist]

Well, I've seen the same movie both ways in the same theater before, and I always felt the D3D to be a better overall experience. Posilby the mileage may vary. It certainly wasn't $3 better

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Honestly, I thought the IMAX photography was even more special than 3D. If I have to choose, 70mm me every time

The upconversion algorithmns even 5 years ago were nasty. every exposition scene would have a grain freeze going on until somone moved a little too fast, then a beehive would erupt out of nowhere. They've really smoothed things out, I still don't see any point in dropping $15 to see an IMAX version (Digital 3D was 12) for a blowup.

I did see a brand new dye-transfer print of Alien in the IMAX theater though, during the last reissue (35mm projection)

That was very very nice, shown in the proper 2.35:1 area of course

Have to agree with you here. I've seen Avatar twice now in digital IMAX 3-D and I can't help but feel that I would have been even more taken with the visuals if it had been shot in 65/70mm. I was more impressed with the true IMAX shots from TDK than the 3D of Avatar, but could only imagine how detailed and jaw dropping the film would have looked in that high of resolution! Still really enjoyed Avatar, but wonder what could have been!

[Jeff Kleist]

I know what it could have been

One BEELon dollars for designing and rendering all that at 8K

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I know what it could have been

One BEELon dollars for designing and rendering all that at 8K

Seriously. I wonder how much the rendering cost for the short sequences in Transformers??

I was suprised how sharp and detailed Avatar did look though in digital IMAX considering the screen size and the fact that it is only a 2K PJ.

[Jeff Kleist]

The Transformers scenes were rendered at 4K

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The Transformers scenes were rendered at 4K

If you don't notice the plot is missing, I'm sure you don't notice that the resolution is missing.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The Transformers scenes were rendered at 4K

Even at that resolution I imagine it cost some coin. I wonder how seamlessly the VFX in Avatar would have blended if rendered in 4K with live footage shot in 65mm.

[Bobby Henderson]

Regarding IMAX, the best quality 3D I've ever seen has been with IMAX 3D shows projecting true IMAX 3D photography. I was particularly impressed with NASCAR 3D: The IMAX Experience.

True IMAX 3D is two strips of 15/65 film in the camera and two strips of 15/70 film in the projector.

There is one downside to 3D in IMAX: the sense of scale of that giant sized image sort of vanishes. Much of the viewer's peripheral vision is filled, but the 3D effect of placing some objects close to the viewer makes those objects appear smaller than projected. The objects are huge on the screen, but since they seem close they're not so big. Get it?

Incidentally, I watched Avatar projected in RealD this past weekend. The movie itself was pretty good, but predictable. The movie looked and sounded great and sported the best quality 3D I've seen yet from a RealD show.

With Avatar being shot electronically and finished at regular 2K resolution I felt absolutely no need at all to drive all the way to Tulsa or Dallas to see it blown up on IMAX 3D prints.