Large Format/"Premium" Theaters (IMAX 15/70, Digital IMAX, XD, ETX, RPX, etc.)

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

4k is woefully inadequate on a traditional IMAX size screen. I made sure to see Prometheus on 15/70, and I try to visit real IMAX every chance I can while it is still around.

Actually, you are wrong. Skyfall was a 4k digital source printed onto 15/70. It actually looked good, likely not superior to a true 4k digital presentation. Prometheus was not filmed in 15/70 and if it was shown in 15/70 then is was nowhere near what 15/70 is.

Only Dark Knight Rises and MI4 have sequences that were 15/70 filmed.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

That is absolutely astonishing, then, in that it makes me wonder if a different, smaller screen is somehow brought into the auditorium when the digital projector is used?

]

The screen in Mississauga is the same the size. What happens is that the digital IMAX presentations letterbox the image.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

No, you are wrong there. I have sat through both, and I'll have to agree to disagree. Yeah neither Prometheus nor SKyfall came close to what natively shot 70mm film comes to in terms of detail. However, Skyfall was not just taken directly off the DCP and printed to 70mm, it still went through the IMAX digital media remastering process to hep reduce pixelation when printed on 70mm film. I am not convinced that a 4K DCP on a stock single 4K DLP projector can look as good as film projected on 15 perf 70mm projector after going through the DMR process when pushed to sizes as large as 117 by 96 feet. Sure having been shot digitally reduces the quality gap. However, I still believe that combination of DMR and film does more to reduce any pixelation at close viewing distances on screens of that size. Your right in that on a digital IMAX screen size of only 74 by 46 feet, that the advantages of 70mm become negligible and the benefits of 4k digital projection come in to play. Still by your logic 4K digital projection on an eight and a half story tall screen is fine, well its not.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but a 4k presentation of a 4k DI will beat a 15/70 presentation printed from a 4K DI source, you might think you are seeing a superior image, but you are actually not. What you are seeing is 4k printed on 15/70 and presented on a large screen.

Even worse for films made on 35mm film. Most IMAX blow ups are just 35mm letterboxed on a really large screen. Dark Knight Rises 35mm sequences were nothing special on 15/70

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Actually, you are wrong. Skyfall was a 4k digital source printed onto 15/70. It actually looked good, likely not superior to a true 4k digital presentation. Prometheus was not filmed in 15/70 and if it was shown in 15/70 then is was nowhere near what 15/70 is.

Only Dark Knight Rises and MI4 have sequences that were 15/70 filmed.

Well, I posted a big long thing about why I still think your wrong.... then I deleted it!

Main reason I disagreed is that they didn't just print the 4K DCP directly to 70mm, it went through the IMAX DMR process to reduce pixelation on screen sizes that large. I still think that 70mm and that 117 by 96 foot screen can give a better film going experience than a standard 4K DLP projector at most venues. Also, I'm still not convinced completely that 4K projection is adequate for an eight story tall screen. At least not compared to natively shot IMAX. It seems that digital camera technology is progressing faster than the digital cinema projectors on the market.

Now here is why I delted my post...

This was posted over on the Red Forum:

The following observations on 2K, 4K, and 3D Large Screen Digital Projection are a DCS member content contribution from Howard Hall, the noted Underwater Filmmaker/Cinematographer/Photographer and Author after attending last month’s Galveston Digital Symposium:


On January 24 I joined 127 other Giant Screen professionals at the Moody Gardens Theater to see the debut of the Barco 4K 3D projector system and to view a split screen 4K projection versus IMAX 70mm projection comparison. The Moody Gardens giant screen is 72 feet by 53 feet.

During the two-day event we saw only digital projections (aside from the 4K versus 70mm “shootout”). Most of the films were projected in 2K on the Barco 4K capable projectors. The 2K projections were shown via both single and two projector systems demonstrating a variety of glasses including Dolby, active, circular polarized, and linear polarized glasses.

I learned little from the 2K projections other than the differences in glasses technologies. I was very surprised at how effective the Dolby notched filter anaglyph glasses were. These totally occluded the opposite eye allowing no ghosting. This combined with the ability to work with any screen surface made this a compelling choice. Glasses cost about $10. The available Dolby glasses are too small for giant screen viewing however. I am sure there is some color shift present when using the Dolby system, but if so I didn’t notice it.

The linear polarized glasses produced the most ghosting which was made more significant when tilting one’s head to the side. Circular polarized glasses were better. Both had more ghosting than Dolby. The active shutter glasses may have produced the best image, but were darker than the others. Active glasses have other well-known maintenance disadvantages when used in commercial venues. Both Dolby and circular polarized systems can be used on single projector system via a spinning filter wheel. They can be used on duel projector systems via discrete filters.

The 2K projections produced a significantly degraded giant screen experience. Although there was no direct comparison with 70mm, the difference was obvious and visceral.

The 4K projections were another story. We saw a RED Cinema demo reel that was stunning. My impression was that it looked as sharp as any 70mm projection. The image “seemed” to fill the giant screen and had excellent contrast, resolution, and saturation. It wasn't until the lights came back up that I noticed that the top of the screen had not been used.

The “shootout” between 70mm and 4K was most interesting. We saw two clips projected via split screen then we saw the clips projected alternately. The first 70mm clip from “Pulse” was printed in the traditional way via negative, interpositive, and duplicate negative. The second 70mm clip (from Wild Ocean) was made in the more modern way via 11K scan from negative, then a 4K down-conversion, then film-out to 70mm. The digital projections were made via 11K scan and then 4K down-conversion. The 4K file of Wild Ocean was the file used for the film-out.

Just comparing the two 70mm clips was enlightening. The “Pulse” clip was significantly better than the film-out version of Wild Ocean. Scanning and film-out of Wild Ocean had been necessary because so many different formats in addition to 70mm were used in original image capture (we saw only 70mm original capture examples). Andrew Orin from FotoKem who made the film prints, estimated that even the “Pulse” clip had degraded to between 5.5 and 6K via the printing process (assuming original camera negative is about 11K).

In my opinion the split screen comparison showed that 4K projection is equal to or better than 70mm projection in all respects save one. The digital images appeared as sharp or sharper, they appeared to have more contrast in addition to equal or better resolution, and the color saturation and fidelity was equal or better. These differences were minor and debatable when the two “Pulse” clips were compared. The differences were dramatic when Wild Ocean was up.

The only remaining advantage to the 70mm projection was that the 4K projection was 16x9 and did not fill the vertical axis of the screen. That the bottom of the 4K screen image was missing was of no consequence to me since audience heads occlude the 70mm image at the bottom and to me this may be viewed as a distraction. The top of the screen is another story however. Some of the experiential effect is lost with the 4K projection though I confess I did not miss it much. This was the only disadvantage to 4K digital capture and projection that I could see and was but one point when scored against the myriad disadvantages, both financial and logistical, of shooting and projection in 70mm.

When the audience was asked which image they liked best, the overwhelming response was that they preferred the digital projection. As an IMAX 70mm veteran, I found that quite astounding.

I recognize that the 16x9 aspect ratio will be much more problematic for giant screen dome theaters. Also Moody Gardens has a modestly sized IMAX screen. Digital light levels may be problematic on the very largest IMAX giant screens some of which are up to 100 feet wide.

Source; http://www.digitalcinemasociety.org/...Newsletter.php

This doesn't change the fact that I will still seek out my 15/70mm IMAX over any 4K DLP projection installation in my state based on screen size alone. It does add some solace that I won't be let down too much when they haul the film projectors to the dump, which is still a shame given how many IMAX features I have come to love over the years that were shot on 15/70mm.

[Flatnate]

Aha, I see you still got my first post before I pulled it down. LOL

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

The screen in Mississauga is the same the size. What happens is that the digital IMAX presentations letterbox the image.

Yeah, so it's confirmed, then, that the current digital projectors are just a temporary "fix" until the ones that can throw onto the entire screen are ready for prime time.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by strumdogg

Thanks BGF! This is a great idea for a thread. Just to add, this is how IMAX differentiates the types of available screens (i.e. if it doesn't fall into these categories, it's not IMAX):

When viewing any film, I've always said my default position is to go with what the creators intended. If they chose to shoot their film for IMAX, then that's how it should be viewed.

I like your contributions and have stolen them for the OP!

Thanks, buddy!

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

Yeah, so it's confirmed, then, that the current digital projectors are just a temporary "fix" until the ones that can throw onto the entire screen are ready for prime time.

No exactly sure.

However, I do know IMAX has a digital camera capable of photographing 1.44. So perhaps they will need some content captured in this format.

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

I'm sorry to break it to you, but a 4k presentation of a 4k DI will beat a 15/70 presentation printed from a 4K DI source, you might think you are seeing a superior image, but you are actually not. What you are seeing is 4k printed on 15/70 and presented on a large screen.

Even worse for films made on 35mm film. Most IMAX blow ups are just 35mm letterboxed on a really large screen. Dark Knight Rises 35mm sequences were nothing special on 15/70

I understand your point entirely (better source content in means better content out) but it also seems like you put very little faith in to the DMR process in terms of improving what the viewer sees on the monster screen in the end? The whole point is to reduce visible pixel structure at closer viewing distances, if you can see the pixel structure on a regular 4K digital projector from some seats but not after going through the DMR process and shown on 15/70mm; then assuming the print is in good shape wouldn't you say that is an improvement over the stock DCP? Not trying to be argumentative, but I really am curious if you think the DMR process or projection technology can improve the experience for some when using very very large screens? Frankly that could boil down to a matter of taste (the crispness of the exact original pixel structure versus the smoothness or some may softness of the printed film post DMR).

[ultraman352]

honestly does it really matter if its in 70mm (EXCLUDING native 70mm footage ie MI4 TDKR TF2) i've been to the Webb Chappel Imax and the Northpark Imax, and the northpark has better sound in my opinion, for TDKR the sound was superior at Northpark but picture was better in Webb Chappel

also i like cinemark XD for cases such as Dolby Atmos

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by ultraman352

honestly does it really matter if its in 70mm (EXCLUDING native 70mm footage ie MI4 TDKR TF2) i've been to the Webb Chappel Imax and the Northpark Imax, and the northpark has better sound in my opinion, for TDKR the sound was superior at Northpark but picture was better in Webb Chappel

also i like cinemark XD for cases such as Dolby Atmos

AMC NorthPark has small auditoriums due to space restrictions (it's built on top of a mall), so maybe the sound was "superior" in part due to the audio mix being played in a smaller venue (i.e. the sound is more concentrated).

You need to watch 70mm 1.44:1 in a Real IMAX theater such as Austin Bob Bullock, San Antonio Riverwalk, Houston Marq*E, or the Fort Worth Omni (when they show regular movies, which is rare). In small places like Cinemark Webb Chapel, you're not getting the overwhelming experience that Real IMAX can achieve.

[ultraman352]

you want to give me a ride for Star Trek 2 lol? (filmed with real imax cameras)
also are you in the Dallas Screening group?

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by ultraman352

you want to give me a ride for Star Trek 2 lol? (filmed with real imax cameras)
also are you in the Dallas Screening group?

No, I'm not. When I see movies early, I just use Gofobo or AdvanceScreenings.com.

Dunno if I'll be in Austin when Star Trek 2 comes out. Hoping for Iron Man 3 as well.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

I understand your point entirely (better source content in means better content out) but it also seems like you put very little faith in to the DMR process in terms of improving what the viewer sees on the monster screen in the end? The whole point is to reduce visible pixel structure at closer viewing distances, if you can see the pixel structure on a regular 4K digital projector from some seats but not after going through the DMR process and shown on 15/70mm; then assuming the print is in good shape wouldn't you say that is an improvement over the stock DCP? Not trying to be argumentative, but I really am curious if you think the DMR process or projection technology can improve the experience for some when using very very large screens? Frankly that could boil down to a matter of taste (the crispness of the exact original pixel structure versus the smoothness or some may softness of the printed film post DMR).

I think the best quality is always what's closest to the source, and if the source is a 4K DI then I want to view a 4K DCP. With 70mm there's no way around the generation loss. Though theoretically it could be brighter and higher-contrast than digital projection.
IMAX's DMR process tends to look pretty bad IMO. I've read Roger Deakins told them to knock it off with Skyfall.

[joeydrunk]

I wish I would have found this thread a few days ago it would have saved me countless hours. I still have a few questions/comment.

First, no one mentioned privately owned chains like the 3 chain "cinetopia" in vancouver wa that has 4k christie projectors an 80 ft screen, playing the hobbit in 48fps hfr, 64.2 channel dolby atmos, waiters for food and drink, leather recliners, livinroom style theatres, etc. The only thing its missing is dbox seats which the hobbit takes advantage of. Im going to go here to see the hobbit 4 hrs away. i havnt been to this but it looks amazing. The night the hobbit opens Im seing here at a grand opening of a new theater the day it opens, Its offered in 2d, rpx reald 3d, and imax 3d, trying to decide from the later 2 which to see.

I would like to know the basic diferences/comparisons/opinions/experiences, but mainly I want to know equipment spec diferences between the regal reald3d rpx screen and amc etx, and cinemarks xd....also what is cinemark next gen? I would like to know screen size, 3d technology, sound system brands and channels, projector brand and resolution (I know there going to differ from location to location but maybe their is enough of a generlization and standard by regal to make an overall consensus on which is better)


I would most like to know the diference between a regal reald3d and a regal imax 3d/liemax. Does the liemax also have wall to celing and convex screen?(same as above on specs)

Also there is a theater with Auro 3d sound about an hour away, its one of about 40 on the globe....anybody heard this system before?

theres also a real imax and an imax globe......can they play hollywood movies at an imax globe?

PPPPS- Ive read the new liemax digital 3d screens no longer use the older linear polarization so less cross talk....any experience with the newer 3d implementation?

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

I just created the thread late last night since I also like to watch movies on the largest screens possible.

As for screen sizes, here's a good pic:



From my experience, AMC ETX, Cinemark XD, and Regal RPX screens are about the same size as Digital/Fake IMAX screens. Yes, they reach the walls, ceiling, and floor, but part of their "size" is also based on tearing up the seats at the front of the theater and bringing the screen closer to the audience.

Cinemark Next Gen sounds nice, but I've been to their Next Gen theater in West Plano. You know what Next Gen is? A really nice lobby and self-serve concessions, so you can control the amount of butter/salt that goes into your popcorn. You can also mix soda flavors to your liking, lol.

I just looked at Cinetopia's website. The theaters look really nice, but I wonder if that 80-ft number is a diagonal measure rather than either the height or the width.

[Snicket]

Thank you for this thread! Very informative.

Also it's fun to watch the videophiles try and one up each other.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Snicket

Thank you for this thread! Very informative.

Also it's fun to watch the videophiles try and one up each other.

Lol, yeah, seems to happen with regularity during the holiday season, but at the end of the day, as long as people are just here to have fun, everything will be okay.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

Main reason I disagreed is that they didn't just print the 4K DCP directly to 70mm, it went through the IMAX DMR process to reduce pixelation on screen sizes that large.

For Skyfall, they did not do DMR, the cinematographer specifically declined the use of it, it did look good in IMAX 1570, but nowhere near what tit would achieve if it was filmed in 1570. Another movie that I do not believe had a DMR was The Dark Knight when shown in IMAX 1570.

As for DMR, I don't mind it. I like it for digital presentations in IMAX. I am not against digital IMAX at all.

but I really am curious if you think the DMR process or projection technology can improve the experience for some when using very very large screens?

I don't think a DMR process helps 15/70 at all. I saw Dark Knight Rises, and it looked simply "ok" when the 35mm sequences were shown, there is nothing in the world that would make them look better, simply blowing 35mm up and showing it on 70mm 15 perf is rediculous as any who has seen a 35mm film frame will understand that blowing it up to 70mm 15 perf is a "lie max" in itself. Even blowing up 35mm to regular 70mm still shows its weakness.

I have seen enough movies in digital IMAX and some in 1570 IMAX. Both serve a purpose.

[strumdogg]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

...watch movies on the largest screens possible...

As long as the creators intended it that way.

[Show spoiler]