AMC Theaters to Switch to 'Super HD' 2160p x 4K PROJECTION

[mugupo]

How 4K stand against Imax?

[RiseDarthVader]

IMAX has no competition against 4K. IMAX can be projected on much larger screens. Even with a high resolution of 4K if you project that on a IMAX sized screen or even IMAX Sydney's and you would see the pixel structure.

[Dubstar]

^ for those that don't know this fact the Sydney Australia IMAX screen is the world's largest rectangular IMAX screen

from wiki:

The largest IMAX Dome screen in the world is in Big Cinemas IMAX in Mumbai, India with a screen area of 1,180 m2 (12,700 sq ft). The largest rectangular IMAX screen in the world is located at IMAX Theatre Sydney [1] in Sydney, Australia, sized 1,051 m2[1] (11,315 sq ft).

I don't know why they use the word rectangular since the aspect ratio of IMAX is more box like. For the record I can't stand Domed IMAX screens they give me massive headaches.

[repete66211]

Originally Posted by jeff92k7

But what you failed to note is that film does have individual grains. These grains are the analog equivalent of the digital pixel. The general consensus is that a 35mm film print will have a grain count between 2k and 4k digital resolutions. So yes, 2k digital cinema may not be quite as sharp as a well cared for 35mm print but, as you mention, there is no degradation of the picture quality with the digital formats.

Film will degrade over time even if it is never used but will degrade MUCH more rapidly when in constant use. With cinemas cramming in as many showings as close together as possible to make more money, they don't have time to do proper care for the films. Because of that, your digital cinema options will give you a more consistent picture quality over the entire length of the movie's run (weeks, months) while film quality will only be good for the first few days.

Yes, film does have grain. (I wouldn't equate it with a pixel, but the comparison is close enough.) The amount of grain depends on, among other things, the speed of the film. But it's more than resolution, it's also a different technology yielding a different image. Passing light through a piece of film creates a different picture than projecting pixels onto a screen. I had the opportunity to see a movie on nitrate film and, even though the film itself wasn't in the best shape, it projected an image different from anything I had seen before. I don't want to attribute magical properties to it, but it was pretty stunning, with a silvery glow to it. (I admit, my expectations and subjective reporting may have had something to do with my perception as well.)

So not only can film have higher resolution than digital, it can also have a different appearance. That said, I am pro-digital. I believe the transportability of the medium is a democratizing and cost-reducing feature of the digital medium. It allows virtually anyone to make a movie. This results in a lot of garbage (cf. YouTube), it also means more good projects get the green light due to what can be a reduced expense. And because it's in digital format we get to archive the movies and, assuming the technology still exists, see the same picture quality 30 years from now that we do today.

[garyrc]

Whether 4K would be overkill in a home theater depends on what you want to do in said home theater!

I estimated (I'll write up the measurement technique, if you are curious) that to recreate the relative size of the image -- on the retina -- I most enjoyed in classic 70 mm films like Around the World in 80 Days (Todd-AO, 1956, from the 7th row from the screen), or 2001; A Space Odyssey (Super Panavision 70, 1968, from about the 10th row from an 85 foot screen), I would need a home screen that was curved, and measured 17 feet across the chord of the arc, as viewed from 13 feet away. Can you imagine Baraka on that screen? Given the discussion in the posts above, 4k might be inadequate!

[Dubstar]

^ yes, I'm hoping Warner and some of the other studios are beginning to transfer their 70mm features on blu-ray hidef. 'Baraka' has certainly set the standard pretty high.

[Dubstar]

Regal just issued a press release stating that they too will install Sony 4K systems over the next 3 to 5 years:

Regal Entertainment Group to Install Sony 4K Digital Cinema Projection Systems Across Entire Circuit

[HDTV1080P]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

Regal just issued a press release stating that they too will install Sony 4K systems over the next 3 to 5 years:

Regal Entertainment Group to Install Sony 4K Digital Cinema Projection Systems Across Entire Circuit

Thanks for the info.
quote from press release
"Sony 4K projectors offer the highest image resolution of all projection technologies, producing 8.8 million pixels. 4K technology provides image resolution four times greater than 2K projection systems and slightly more than four times greater than high-definition."

[dialog_gvf]

My local AMC has one theater they designate ETX (Enhanced Theatrical eXperience). It has a 4K projector and a 11-channel/57K watt sound system.

It's definitely a vast improvement over the other theaters in the complex which are 2K DLP. But, with such a huge screen even 4K is lacking, IMHO.

What I wouldn't give to see a 70mm (from 65mm source) projection in that theater. It is a HUGE theater, like the good ole 70mm days.

Gary

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by mugupo

How 4K stand against Imax?

IMAX film? IMAX blows it away. You'd need something like 16K to match IMAX.

4K is barely adequate to capture what is in 35mm (6K is preferable).

Gary

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

IMAX has no competition against 4K. IMAX can be projected on much larger screens. Even with a high resolution of 4K if you project that on a IMAX sized screen or even IMAX Sydney's and you would see the pixel structure.

If I remember right, the helicopter shots of city skyscrapers in TDK were the usual 16k IMAX resolution but the shots involving action and actors were around 6k to 8k resolution.

[Dubstar]

hence why Nolan wasn't all that impressed with Warner's initial decision in degrading the IMAX shot scenes to the inferior IMAX-Digital 2K resolution.

[Dubstar]

35mm is closer to 6K, than 8K.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

hence why Nolan wasn't all that impressed with Warner's initial decision in degrading the IMAX shot scenes to the inferior IMAX-Digital 2K resolution.

Perhaps for the IMAX digital screens, but the IMAX presentation that I saw of it was incredible (at a real IMAX theater, not the fake digital bullcrap being peddled by AMC and Regal). No way in hell that was just 2k resolution.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

Perhaps for the IMAX digital screens, but the IMAX presentation that I saw of it was incredible (at a real IMAX theater, not the fake digital bullcrap being peddled by AMC and Regal). No way in hell that was just 2k resolution.

IMAX 70mm is around 8K. IMAX-Digital is two Christie 2K projectors. At one point the system was supposed to be one Sony 4K projector which at this point would seem counterintuitive, since supposedly Warners released 4K harddrive disc versions of 'The Dark Knight' as such to select theatres.

[serenity]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

Regal just issued a press release stating that they too will install Sony 4K systems over the next 3 to 5 years:

Regal Entertainment Group to Install Sony 4K Digital Cinema Projection Systems Across Entire Circuit

But they will not be installing them in every auditorium. Most auditoriums will still be using standard 2k projectors from various manufactures.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by serenity

But they will not be installing them in every auditorium. Most auditoriums will still be using standard 2k projectors from various manufactures.

here's another similiar online news story:

Sony, Regal ink deal for digital

"Sony's AMC installations are expected to begin by year's end and extend through 2012, involving more than 300 theaters and 4,600 North American screens.

Together, the Regal and AMC pacts catapult Sony Electronics and its high-resolution 4K systems into an industry-leading position amid the exhibition industry's aggressive push into digital distribution and 3-D cinema.

Some other circuits have invested heavily in 2K-resolution digital projectors, which were widely perceived as the industry norm before the AMC deal. "

we'll see, but I really doubt that a deal with Sony would retain the licensing of a competitor's (2K DLP) unit in the same theatre. The norm now is 4K, not only theatrical digital projection, but film to video transfers, and actual filming, the Red One 4K cameras. 6K and 8K transferring are just around the corner for 70mm films being transferred and stored. [i.e, 'Baraka' and select future releases from Warners Home Video]

[serenity]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

here's another similiar online news story:

Sony, Regal ink deal for digital

"Sony's AMC installations are expected to begin by year's end and extend through 2012, involving more than 300 theaters and 4,600 North American screens.

Together, the Regal and AMC pacts catapult Sony Electronics and its high-resolution 4K systems into an industry-leading position amid the exhibition industry's aggressive push into digital distribution and 3-D cinema.

Some other circuits have invested heavily in 2K-resolution digital projectors, which were widely perceived as the industry norm before the AMC deal. "

we'll see, but I really doubt that a deal with Sony would retain the licensing of a competitor's (2K DLP) unit in the same theatre. The norm now is 4K, not only theatrical digital projection, but film to video transfers, and actual filming, the Red One 4K cameras. 6K and 8K transferring are just around the corner for 70mm films being transferred and stored. [i.e, 'Baraka' and select future releases from Warners Home Video]

Yeah I stand corrected about this. Last I heard it was only going to be on the largest screens and premiere theatres. But I guess not. Now lets see if the studios start shipping 4k content. Because at this point they are not. But with this many theatres equipped with 4k it could change things.

The other thing to note is the Sony 4k problems have problems getting proper light output on larger screens. Especially when they run 2k content. Not as much with the 4k content though. Hopefully Sony has rectified this problem.

[mtbkr]

i wouldn't care if the actors came into the theater and acted out the movie while wearing 3d glasses and all in 10 million k resolution all while a sound crew recreated the audio live and at 10,000 decibels, there will still always be the 15 year old dork sitting behind you thinking that his narration of the movie is some how better or funnier that whats going on up front. not to mention i cant pause the movie when i need to take a piss. as you can tell i hate the movie theater experience as a whole. nothing beats being stuck at home, broke and watching stuff blow up on my own tv even though its not 4k. my ass aint going to the theater.....sorry for venting

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by serenity

Yeah I stand corrected about this. Last I heard it was only going to be on the largest screens and premiere theatres. But I guess not. Now lets see if the studios start shipping 4k content. Because at this point they are not. But with this many theatres equipped with 4k it could change things.

The other thing to note is the Sony 4k problems have problems getting proper light output on larger screens. Especially when they run 2k content. Not as much with the 4k content though. Hopefully Sony has rectified this problem.

Sony released Hancock and Angels & Demons in 4k (as well as Dr. Strangelove at the Landmark LA theatre, Warners (released Blade Runner in 4K again at the Landmark LA theatre as well), Sony and Universal will and have release films in 4K form.