8K is available yet 4K hangs on like a disease that killed someone dear to you. Why?

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

How much would a filmmaker be able to push the file in post before a 10 bit DPX would start to become a hinderance? Isn't it possible that IMAX's DNR, which as I understand it automatically tackles grain and tries to get rid of it on a image to image basis, could panic at the particularly grainy photography of M:I5 and just push certain shots past the point of acceptability as far as sharpening and de-graining are concerned? Or it could be that the colorist sharpened these shots since they were out of focus, and then IMAX ran their special sauce program over it. I'm interested because as a budding filmmaker, the freedom I have with a Sony A6000 feels amazing over what I had with a T2i, so I'm curious if once you hit the big boy camera's whether or not 10 bit gives the filmmakers a comfortable amount of room to play with.

I'm lost on why a digital shoot like Ant-Man or Guardian's would look atrocious, though. Could just be because the only IMAX around me has the seats awkwardly close to the 40x60 screen. The pixelation is worse than any other D-IMAX I've been to, including the Metreon in San Fran or an equally large screen in Portland.

Interesting you say this. Saw Ant Man at the IMAX in Seattle to try their new projector. Looked awful. Like a TV with all the enhancements on max. Saw the 2D trailer for the new MI movie before it and it looked awful as well prompting me to skip it there and see it with friends at the Cinerama instead. Picture looked great there (as did the trailers of it that I saw before). I can't remember the last time I was impressed with an IMAX showing honestly. Maybe THe Dark Knight in true 70mm??