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

[mugupo]

explain

[JadedRaverLA]

Film (including IMAX) doesn't have a "resolution," the way video does. Even Super35mm can resolve to quite a bit higher than 1080p video when scanned (actual resolution varies by film stock). IMAX film can easily scan at 10,000x7,000 pixels or higher... though the new IMAX Digital is going to be just 2k digital projection.

[Bobby Henderson]

Reportedly Warner Bros. is scanning the 15-perf 65mm IMAX negatives from The Dark Knight at 8K resolution -and that doesn't capture all the detail from a giant film format negative such as IMAX. The 35mm stuff is being processed in 4K. Either way it's a LOT more pixels than 1080p.

[mrgreed202]

imax basically = double 35mm = 70mm

[WickyWoo]

imax basically = double 35mm = 70mm

No, it's way more than that

ARRI estimates 8746 x 3855 equivalent resolving power on 65mm film

I believe that since IMAX is run sideways like VistaVision, that potential resolution may be even higher

[Deciazulado]

Imax is about 48.5 mm x 70 mm
Super 35 for anamorphic prints, 10 mm x 24 mm

[SkillzthatKillz]

yeah its got a higher rez but projectors dont offer the same contrast ratios/colors that a nice plasma/lcd and the screen size is a lot larger so the viewing experience on a 1080p flat panel is arguably better than that of imax

[diamondfoxxx]

Though 35mm is deemed to have a 'resolution' roughly at about 4k, when the image finally reaches the screen it gets degraded and what you see may actually sum up to about 2k.

[swifty7]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

Film (including IMAX) doesn't have a "resolution," the way video does. Even Super35mm can resolve to quite a bit higher than 1080p video when scanned (actual resolution varies by film stock). IMAX film can easily scan at 10,000x7,000 pixels or higher... though the new IMAX Digital is going to be just 2k digital projection.

are you serious? how can they afford to project 2k only on a screen the size of IMAX. Are we to believe that the 2k projected image is going to look as sharp and detailed as much as IMAX film?

[MatintheHat]

Originally Posted by SkillzthatKillz

yeah its got a higher rez but projectors dont offer the same contrast ratios/colors that a nice plasma/lcd and the screen size is a lot larger so the viewing experience on a 1080p flat panel is arguably better than that of imax

Really?

Have you actually seen an Imax presentation? (I'm not talking some banged up 35mm print blown up way beyond it's means either.)

Originally Posted by SkillzthatKillz

yeah its got a higher rez but projectors dont offer the same contrast ratios/colors that a nice plasma/lcd and the screen size is a lot larger so the viewing experience on a 1080p flat panel is arguably better than that of imax

You really believe that? Really?

The projectors don't offer the same "contrast ratios/colors" because they don't NEED those adjustments. What you see in a (properly maintained) theatre is how it's supposed to look.

[MatintheHat]

Originally Posted by diamondfoxxx

Though 35mm is deemed to have a 'resolution' roughly at about 4k, when the image finally reaches the screen it gets degraded and what you see may actually sum up to about 2k.

Not really.

We were running Shrek2 in 2K DLP with a 35mm back-up print. During the trial run we made some comparisons and it was obvious the 35mm print had more 'resolution' if you want to call it that.

Also, with the 2k system we couldn't get too close to the screen without seeing pixels (it was a 37' wide screen) - like 15'-20' or so. With film we'd only have to be just a couple feet from the screen to start seeing grain - which is much less noticeable because it's not static like pixels.

You say that "when the image finally reaches the screen it gets degraded and what you see may actually sum up to about 2k". Do you mean to say that poor optics, registration, stability and screen quality would degrade the 35mm image? I'm guessing you are and if so then those same things will degrade a digital image as well so what's your point?

[The_Snowman]

Originally Posted by mugupo

explain

I'll do better than that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imax

You all go read that, then come back here and argue about it.....

[The_Snowman]

IMAX (short for Image Maximum)

A standard IMAX screen is 22 m wide and 16.1 m high (72.6 ft x 52.8 ft), but can be larger.

As of March 2007, there were 280 IMAX theatres in 38 countries

The world's largest IMAX 3D cinema screen is located in Sydney, Australia.

The IMAX system was developed by four Canadians: Graeme Ferguson, Roman Kroitor, Robert Kerr and William C. Shaw.

Further improvements and variations on IMAX include the possibility of a faster 48 frames per second rate, known as IMAX HD.

A new IMAX projection system slated for use in mid-2008 simulates a 3D view and uses new digital technology.

IMAX recently signed a deal with AMC to start utilizing this new technology beginning July 2008

[MatintheHat]

Originally Posted by The_Snowman

I'll do better than that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imax

You all go read that, then come back here and argue about it.....

Thanks The_Snowman!

[DrXym]

This article suggests two 2K projectors reading 4K information:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...5da10fc05e5087

Maybe the two projectors beam left and right sides, or top and bottom, or over the top of each other, or alternate frames (for 3D).

2K certainly seems too low for those size of screens.

[diamondfoxxx]

My point is that digital projection is the way to go. There will be no wear and tear and it'll be like viewing a fresh 35mm print everytime you watch the film, even if it's the last week. I don't think the image will be degraded to something lower than 2k when projected digitally, but the 35mm print will wear down as time goes by. The digital print will have none of those, and will display a sharp image everytime it appears on the screen.
My point is that shoot the movie in film, and project digitally everytime so it will be a closer expierience to the originally intended look.

[X400]

dark knight is gonna be on imax? ohhh baby

[mugupo]

Yes, i might gonna watch dark knight, some site like IGN gave dark knight a 5 out 5. but 15 bucks for a ticket i still think is overpay for any movie, but oh well maybe ok for 1.

[amtctt]

Originally Posted by X400

dark knight is gonna be on imax? ohhh baby

Problem is, the imax screen is roughly 4:3, so it's never OAR. and they tend to cut out seens for the imax version. not sure if they will for this. but i saw attack of the clones at imax after seeing it the theater and there was about a 10-20 minutes difference. not cool.

[CptGreedle]

technically an Imax screen is 10,000 x 10,000 pixels, but they crop the image (or rather the screen) in letterbox style for films so it is often something like 10,000 x 7,000 or whatnot.

I have gotten tired of many Imax presentations. If you are not in a good (centered) seat, it can really give you a neck and head ache.