Is IMAX better than 1080p? what resolution are they film?

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

IMAX Digital is 4K

There are 4K DLP chips?

Gary

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

There are 4K DLP chips?

Gary

yes, the IMAX tech told me this directly.

[Dubstar]

the few films actually projected and seen in 4K excepting IMAX-Digital engagements have been

- Blade Runner (Landmark Theatre LA engagement)
- Dr. Strangelove (again Landmark LA)
- Hancock (the AMC theatres that have Sony's LCoS systems)

and supposedly the upcoming release of 'Quantum of Solace' from Sony. There was a rumour awhile back that a few scenes were shot in 70mm, but as it turned out they were shot with 4K cameras.

[Bobby Henderson]

I have to weigh in with a couple of corrections.

1. There is no such thing as a 4K resolution DLP chip. The 2048 X 1080 DLP chip is the highest resolution DLP device TI currently makes. There is currently no time table on when or even if a 4K DLP will be delivered.

2. "IMAX Digital" is not the equivalent of 4K. The process merely uses two modified Christie CP2000 2K digital projectors to yield an overall resolution of 2160 X 2048 pixels. That's still merely half the pixel count of a true 4K image (4096 X 2160).

I think IMAX is setting itself up for its downfall with this IMAX Digital thing. This system is not remotely the same or anywhere near as good as true 15/70 film-based IMAX. It's just sticking the IMAX brand on a normal sized theater with a somewhat glorified 2K digital projector.

IMAX is already getting into trouble with so many Hollywood blow up movies from 35mm or video. Most of what is shown in IMAX theaters is not native IMAX anymore unless you visit an IMAX theater in a museum and see a documentary there. Commercial IMAX theaters are not delivering enough of the true IMAX experience.

[Liquid-Prince]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Yes I say you are correct that film does have a limited resolution. A movie that hasn't had a DI won't have a specific number of pixels, though it will have a resolution (you could scan it at high res though and see how many pixels each grain took up). I'd say that the 35mm film itself is a physical medium too. ie. it's a physical piece of film with "silver halide" grains on to store the image.

Definition is different then resolution. I have given my answer before so I have nothing new to say. A piece of film has a certain amount of exposed image. Depending on how much it can then be scanned into a computer and given an equivalent resolution. Film itself has no resolution.

For example, I work at Disney and I go to the original negatives for Sleeping Beauty. I take those negatives and scan them in at 2K and then downgrade them to 480i. Two years later, Blu-ray comes out and again, I take those very same negatives except this time I scan them in at 4K and downgrade them to 1080P. Film itself has no resolution, but has a maximum size that it can be scanned to, before it yields no more picture information.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince

Film itself has no resolution, but has a maximum size that it can be scanned to, before it yields no more picture information.

In the later, you will have found the true resolution of that piece of film. It's true resolution. The point at which it yields no more picture information if you were to scan it further will be the resolution of the film (approximately).

I don't think you'll agree with me though - that film has a resolution (that it can resolve a certain amount of picture detail), but the dictionary definitions of resolution back me up, and most people in this thread accept that film has a resolution.

I know what you mean though. That you could scan a certain piece of film at whatever pixel resolution you wanted. I suppose at ever higher scan resolutions you're getting a more accurate representation of what the individual film grains look like. But resolution in it's meaning of the amount of picture detail from a scene a piece of film was holding (for example in being able to resolve between the lines in a test chart), film does have a resolution.

If they took a standard def 720x480 image and resized it to 1920x1080 and stored it on Blu-ray, it's pixel resolution on Blu-ray would be 1920x1080 but that wouldn't be it's true resolution (in terms of it's resolving power, it's ability to show fine details - like if the original image was a test chart with fine lines that only a 'true' 1920x1080 image could accurately represent, the 1920x1080 image that had been resized from 720x480 wouldn't be able to show (resolve) those individual lines. It wouldn't have the true resolution needed.

[Blu Man]

4K2K and Liqiud-Prince, You two have been fighting for almost two thread pages now and you still have not reach an agreement, and you most likely won't. So whats the point of continuing to argue? I don't know the answer, but is it really worth getting so heated about?

[Chevypower]

4K2K, you have talked a lot about film grains being similar to pixels, and making up the definition or resolution of optical film. Are you sure there is a direct correlation between the two? Because it is my understanding the two are separate elements. (You can have noticeable grain, while having an enhanced picture definition). I think in this digital age, we try to understand the technologies of the past with our limited understanding only in newer technologies. So we look at film and think pixels. We look at film and ask is it analog or digital? When in fact it is neither. It will be like people in the future knowing nothing about gasoline and internal combustion engines, and trying to understand it, only knowing about electric and fuel-cells. I don't claim to be an expert when it comes to film, but maybe Dezi can shed some light on this subject.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

4K2K, you have talked a lot about film grains being similar to pixels, and making up the definition or resolution of optical film. Are you sure there is a direct correlation between the two?

I accept that a film grain is not totally equivalent to a pixel, and that film grain is random. Whereas pixels on a HD video camera are of fixed size and always in the same place (don't move). As Penton mentioned "most film grain is roughly about 8 to 16 pixels in ‘size’ in an area at 4K or larger" (I assume he was talking about 35mm film).

I've not been making up definitions of resolution - look back at my posts where I have given dictionary & encyclopedia definitions of the word.

Film and HD video are different. But in terms of their image resolving power (resolution of the scene image stored on film itself by the individual film grains or encoded on the HD video tape as digital values usually), it can be measured, by pointing the camera at a test chart that has lines getting finer and closer together and seeing how much each is able to resolve. If a certain two lines from the test chart can be seen to be clearly separate lines on one source but appear merged together into one line on the other source, the former source has more resolution in terms of it's ability to resolve fine details in a scene (well that test has only been a test of static resolution - not motion resolution).

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Spartan54

4K2K and Liqiud-Prince, You two have been fighting for almost two thread pages now and you still have not reach an agreement, and you most likely won't. So whats the point of continuing to argue? I don't know the answer, but is it really worth getting so heated about?

I agree. If we still don't agree with each other maybe we should just agree to differ

I can see and understand some of his points though. Someone could keep scanning an 8mm piece of film at ever higher resolutions and get an ever more accurate representation of the shape of the individual grains. So in that respect I could see how something physical doesn't have an actual resolution.

But as I've said, resolution is also how much detail from a scene/photograph/video a particular medium as able store. And Obviously IMAX film has more resolution (resolving power/ability to show fine details in a scene) than 8mm film, mostly because the film itself is an awful lot bigger. Even though the individual grain sizes may be the same, there are a lot more of them due to the much bigger film gauge, allowing it to store more details from the scene.

[Deciazulado]

Film resolution is specified in resolving power in c/mm (cycles per millimeter) or lp/mm (line pairs per millimeter). Diferent stocks have different resolving power. Normally finer grained (slow) film has more resolving power, higher sensitivity (faster) film has less resolving power, etc, all else being equal.

A simplified triangle of image quality capability is made by grain-speed-resolution. If you try to get more speed, graininess usually increases and/or resolution decreases, etc. With advances in film emulsion technology the triangle gets bigger. You get higher speed with the same fine grain, equivalent sharpness, etc.

If you have coarse big grain you get more speed (sensitivity) but the resolving power is decreased, while if you have finer smaller grain, packaged in a more uniform way into a thinner emulsion layer, you get better sharpness and the ability record finer detail per millimeter, but less sensitivity (you need more light) somewhat similar to having more pixels packed into a sensor.

The lens on the camera also has a resolution limit and the combined resolution of the film emulsion and the lens resolution that ends up on the final image on the negative is less than each's.

So having the resolving power of the final image (c/mm) and the size of the image (mm) you can multiply both and get what the resolution of the film/camera/lens system is capable of.

Also what we perceive as grain on photographic images is actually grain clumps as the grains are randomly distributed in irregular patterns within the film emulsion. (The smoothing and more uniform distribution of grain in film emulsions is one of the ways film quality has improved over the years) We're not looking at the individual grains themselves when we look at images in normal picture and movie viewing magnifications. To see the real individual grains you have to use those microscopic enlargements where the image is blown up so much you can barely make any of it.



Additionally, as Penton-Man mentioned in his thread, in color photography today, you normally bleach out the silver grains after development, and what remains are the color dye "clouds" of magenta cyan and yellow that formed and clumped together around them when the film was being developed.

[ipodvi]

So is IMAX on a blu-ray still just 1080p? Because the Dark Knight begging looks great. Thanks

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by ipodvi

So is IMAX on a blu-ray still just 1080p? Because the Dark Knight begging looks great. Thanks

Yes, still 1080P. The perceived higher resolution is due to the quality of the source. As they say, "shit in, shit out."

[Flatnate]

Well what I still don't understand is how IMAX is able to show "4K" with two 2K Christie digital cinema projectors. I understand two projectors is great for brightness and picture quality in 3D, but I can't understand how for 2D stacking the projectors would give a perceived increase in resolution above 2K (Star Trek being the last film I watched on IMAX digital in 2D). So again if anyone can definitively tell me how stacking two 2k resolution projectors gives you a "4K" resolution image please explain this one.

What will really pickle your noodle is how AMC Theaters has inked a deal with Sony to install Sony 4K SXRD (LCOS) digital cinema projectors throughout all of their screens nationwide. So if you go to a 2D movie (rare these days) on the IMAX digital screen I would believe your actually losing resolution over projectors installed on the smaller screens in the same complex!