Bye Bye good Picture Quality at IMAX [Text View]

donaldk

03-25-08, 10:58 PM

Wolfgang, they could do what NHK/JVC did with the proof of concept prototype projector used in the NHK 8 demoes. 4 4K chips, one red, one blue and two green, the second green channel off-set by a quarter pixel to right and top, to get '8K resolution' in green.

The Sony's are being used in planetaria, by SkySkan, they put two in at the Amsterdam planetarium, which was upgraded last year.

"Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The world-renowned Artis Royal Zoo Amsterdam, boasting 1.2 million visitors per year, will be the first site in Europe to receive the latest projection technology in Sky-Skan’s definiti™ theater line. In a ceremony today, Sky-Skan president Steve Savage met with Artis Royal Zoo Amsterdam director Haig Balian to sign the contract for the new theater. In an exciting first for a European Full Dome theater, two Sony SXRD projectors will show the night sky with amazing clarity along with exciting Full Dome video shows from top-notch producers. The change to Sky-Skan marks the sixth theater to be contracted in 2006 which will take advantage of the definiti HD lens that allows SXRD projectors from Sony to work in the unique dome environment. Artis Royal Zoo Amsterdam already had Sky-Skan’s SPICE Automation handling control duties in the theater, so adding this digital projection completes an already fruitful relationship between the two organizations.

The renovated theater will seat 328 visitors under a 20-meter (66-foot) dome. The theater is part of the large Zoo complex, a location well-known as the oldest and most prestigious zoo on the European continent. The playback shows slated for the location include Mirage3D’s life and planetary science epic Origins of Life, and the lively computer animated characters of Kaluoka’hina, The Enchanted Reef from Softmachine."

Alan Gouger

03-25-08, 11:35 PM

Wolfgang, they could do what NHK/JVC did with the proof of concept prototype projector used in the NHK 8 demoes. 4 4K chips, one red, one blue and two green, the second green channel off-set by a quarter pixel to right and top, to get '8K resolution' in green.

Thats pretty clever. So in a sense any manufacture could do the same right now with 1080 chips and give us a 4k DLP. Its cheating, similar to the wobulation technique but if it works it could be a neat solution until we get true 4k DLPs.

W.Mayer

03-26-08, 07:32 AM

yes they can do this but the will not do it.

they will using them the normally way and a bet
that most of them will use 2 pr. only for 3d and not
as a stack for 2d.

agree that 3d at 2k is for most people better than 4k in 2d.

thats why i am working hard to find a way to feed my 3d content
with a normally computer to such pr. without the need for a 3d server.

i have solve 97% of all the problems and i looking forward to solve
the rest as well in the next 3-4 weeks.
very very much work because i hear from reald yesterday the
they know no one that did this before.

Alan Gouger

03-26-08, 10:27 AM

yes they can do this but the will not do it.

This is to bad because we could benefit from the 4k fill factor now with out the need for special inputs or content. Just feed the projector our current source and let the projector output 1080p yet we would benefit from the two green panels extra fill. When your not an engineer these things sound so simple :p

donaldk

03-26-08, 02:24 PM

This is to bad because we could benefit from the 4k fill factor now with out the need for special inputs or content. Just feed the projector our current source and let the projector output 1080p yet we would benefit from the two green panels extra fill. When your not an engineer these things sound so simple :p

No, you need to feed the extra resolution, NHK did not downconvert the demoloops, they did do this (well Astro Design did) for the 4K lcd screens outside the demotheater. They also had the older 4 chip 8K camera on top of the exhibithall with real time downconversion.

For wobulation chips you also had to feed full res imagery, it may have been scled to the full resolution but you need something to show after the chip wobbled to the second position.

rob316

03-26-08, 02:30 PM

Little off topic I wonder if Godzilla 3D will be presented on the new projectors. Godzilla 3D for Imax Theatres only is due out beginning of 09

R Johnson

03-26-08, 07:54 PM

... sad that sony is not successful with there new 4k cinema pr. the 220. ...
It seems that resolution alone is not the road to success.
Can you share the reasons that have contributed to Sony's lack of success?

Ohlson

03-27-08, 10:43 AM

JVC have true 8k panels on their road map. It seems like JVC looks at the entire system since they are also working their way to a 8k camera.

Temperature gradients over the panel must be hard to handle as well as too much heat. I suggest a cooler light source. Upcoming Dcinema seminars will at least discuss the possibiliy of replacing xenons with lasers.

W.Mayer

03-27-08, 05:07 PM

It seems that resolution alone is not the road to success.
Can you share the reasons that have contributed to Sony's lack of success?

you not read all my posts or?:)

that not easy to answer but will try it one more time.

the most importan point you already say "resolution alone is not the road to success"

that is because 35 mm film most of the time not contains more than 2k anyway.
Eastman EXR 50 D arround 4 mil pixels
Kodak Vision 100 T / 200 T daylight 2-3 mil. pixels
Kodak Vision 320 T / 500 T less than 2 mil. pixels
Kodak Vision 800 T bis 1,5 mil. pixels.

this are the most used 35mm filmtypes today!

than because of the mtf a pr. with 8 mil. pixels not can show them all like
the dlp system can do.

no movies in 4k there.

how will carry two digiatal versions of a movie at 2k AND 4k?

dlp proof that the pr. that are running 3000 houres per year are reliable.
lcos have many problems like shading etc.
(thats not the case for home pr. i talk only about high lumen cinema pr.!)

the new 220 sony can do 18000 lumen the new dlp go to 30000 lumens.

i will not go further but that todays cinemas have 99.98% dlp pr. say it all.

may it change by time when for sample the red camera 4k system
will be heavy used and or other 4k camera systems find the way to the
market.
this will take years and by then may ti have a 4k pr. as well.:)

with todays 35mm 4k make not a big sense for the average joe
because he will not see the difference anyway :)

but still MY dream is to have 4k in 3d in still pictures and movie
AT MY HOME.
hope i will see it in my live.

Frank Derks

03-27-08, 05:29 PM

donaldk

03-27-08, 07:30 PM

Thanks for the eyewitness report Frank, never been to the Artis planetarium, nor the preceeding Zeiss Planetarium at Gaasperplas. Well not while it was a working planetarium, attended a conference there last year. the dome houses the conference center's two restaurants, and unfortunately they put in a ceiling. Or have I, as a kid we went to a planetarium once, on a schooltrip, probably the Omniversum in the Hague, but could have been the Zeis Planetarium in this large park on the outskirts of Amsterdam aswell.

R Johnson

03-28-08, 02:21 PM

you not read all my posts or?:) that not easy to answer but will try it one more time.
Sorry, I wasn't more explicit. I was primarily wondering why so few movie theater chains have selected the Sony 4K units.

I suspect that, as you point out, the DLP units have a good track record in terms of reliability. DLP established quite a large installed base before Sony got to the market.

I agree with your observation that most 35mm film does not have resolution needing more than a 2K projector.

Last fall, the Muvico chain based in Florida opened an 18 theater complex in the Chicago suburbs equipped with the Sony 4K projectors. I saw one film there, and didn't really find it superior to 2K DLP. Muvico plans to open a new complex in downtown Chicago in about a year. It will be interesting to see what they use!

GeorgeAB

04-09-08, 01:09 PM

I saw one film there, and didn't really find it superior to 2K DLP.
If they were using a perforated screen, that may be a large part of the reason. Tests have been conducted for cinema professionals comparing 4K to 2K on a 50 ft. wide perfed screen and they could not distinguish between the two. The same group could also readily recognize an increase in resolution when 2K was demonstrated on a non-perfed vs. a perfed screen.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

W.Mayer

04-22-08, 07:02 AM

i talk today with some developer of cinema dlp units about this issue and he confirm me
that there will be only high brightness 2048x1080 pr. used
for imax and that there is no 4k dlp on the horizon any time soon.

i think it will take at least 3 years to see a 4k dlp cinema pr.

Art Sonneborn

04-22-08, 08:32 AM

What reason would there be to go to an IMAX theater then ? This is the death knell IMO.

Art

Alan Gouger

04-22-08, 10:43 AM

They say most people attending a commercial theater no longer care about presentation or would know a good/bad picture if it bit them. On the other side those attending Imax are a different bread and do so for the extras it offers, time will tell.

GeorgeAB

04-22-08, 01:25 PM

I highly recommend the latest edition of SMPTE's 'Motion Imaging Journal,' April 2008. It's titled: 'Sowing the Seeds of UHDTV' and includes feature articles on the following topics:

'Research on Human Factors in Ultrahigh-Definition Television to Determine its Specifications'

'Quest for Finding the Right HD Format: A New Psychophysical Method for Subjective HDTV Assessment'

'A 22.2 Multichannel Sound System for Ultrahigh-Definition TV'

'4K+ Systems: Theory Basics for Motion Picture Imaging'

This publication is free to members of SMPTE. Contact them for availability of single issues. I also recommend becoming a member of SMPTE to anyone who is full time serious about motion imaging. They are non-profit and worthy of the support, plus there are multiple benefits to members.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

W.Mayer

04-22-08, 08:09 PM

yes ther is since long time much talk about 4k and even 8k pr.

but fakt is right now that 70mm copys are soon not anymore at imax
and they will get 2048x1080 thats it.

4k and 8k is most lcos but that system have not enough light to do imax.

Ohlson

04-23-08, 11:18 AM

Bigger picture and same source equals worse picture quality.
Why couldn´t a medium sized screen with high resolution and picture quality be promoted provided the setup is very immersive?
The fact that 4k dlp is not ready for a while gives lcos a chance to iron out all the quirks of 4k lcos or 8k for that matter.

GeorgeAB

04-23-08, 11:43 AM

Why couldn´t a medium sized screen with high resolution and picture quality be promoted provided the setup is very immersive?
More sense of immersion is accomplished by filling more of the audience's field of view, which means a bigger screen, or sitting closer. That's the fundamental purpose for IMAX. Sitting closer still requires higher resolution.

Smaller screens may reduce the light requirement from the projector but results in smaller auditoriums, fewer seats, less ticket sales, delayed return on investment. The physics and psychophysics are unavoidable.

Art Sonneborn

04-23-08, 01:27 PM

Am I missing something ? IMAX at essentially the same resolution I have in my home theater ? This is all she wrote IMO.:(

Art

darinp2

04-23-08, 09:02 PM

If IMAX loses their reputation for the most immersive experience with great picture quality, they may never be able to get it back enough. One bad experience and some people will be lost to other theaters (or home theaters). Two bad experiences ...

Some companies never recover from relying on a reputation of excellence to losing that reputation. Even if they go back to their previous quality.

If I owned a theater chain that competed with IMAX I would probably be very happy to hear they were going to have the same resolution as us and force most of their customers to sit close to that.

--Darin

Art Sonneborn

04-24-08, 11:02 PM

IMAX got it's name ,image maximum, for a reason. That reason will evaporate with 2MP resolution. The seating distances in any IMAX I've been in will make that a joke IMO. This really is depressing. I need to be sure to take my children while they are still using film .

Art

GI Joe Sixpack

04-25-08, 10:31 AM

If they were using a perforated screen, that may be a large part of the reason. Tests have been conducted for cinema professionals comparing 4K to 2K on a 50 ft. wide perfed screen and they could not distinguish between the two. The same group could also readily recognize an increase in resolution when 2K was demonstrated on a non-perfed vs. a perfed screen.

Hi George,
I'd really be interested in reading about those tests. Can you provide a link? (Or are they described in the SMPTE journal you referenced? I have a friend who's a member so maybe I can get a look.) Also, aren't most (if not all) commercial cinema screens perforated? If so, I can imagine Sony for one wouldn't want the results of these tests to be widely known!

GeorgeAB

04-25-08, 01:55 PM

"I’m going to take a quick side step and discuss acoustic screens, which allow sound to pass through them. The heritage of building so called “sound screens” dates back to sound coming to the motion picture industry. They put a lot of “small” holes in the screen, so sound from loudspeakers located behind the screen could come through. What this did was help localize the source of the sound for the majority of the audience. In a large theatre, where the screen might need to be 50 feet wide, there haven’t been a lot of “acceptable” alternatives to placing the loudspeakers behind the screen. I’ll go further adrift and tell you that I’ve seen and heard a system in Paris where the screen itself was used to create the sound, I suppose much like a ribbon loudspeaker. I didn’t take the time to figure out if the small vibrations of the screen hurt the image as much as the holes in the screen in other sets of circumstances. I did learn that the motion picture industry has lived with the image quality loss of holes in the screen for so long that not much interest has surfaced (there is a pun in there somewhere) in fixing the problem.

While we are adrift, I should tell you about the world of electronic cinema, where the issue of holes in the screen is once again being addressed. The Digital Cinema Initiatives, LLC (DCI) did a presentation where a 4K-image source from an animated feature was projected by a 4K projector on a screen that was about 50 feet wide. That same image was downconverted to 2K and projected by a 2K projector. On the perforated screen, you couldn’t tell the difference between the two images. Put up a solid screen, and the differences were significant. Put up a solid screen on the 2K projector, and it looked seriously better than on the perforated screen. The quick lesson in all of this is that image detail passes through the holes in the screen and never comes back to the audience. Who would have ever thought such a thing possible? Now come to JKP and find us being concerned about the size of the grain on a solid screen and immediately know where we come down on perforated screens. They certainly don’t fit into our idea of a good screen. (We do want to take a closer look at making the screen itself the sound driver.)" From the Widescreen Review, Issue 119, April 2007, Industry View, Joe Kane's 'Qualities Of A High-Performance Home Projection Screen.'

"Several years ago, (Joe) Kane ran tests using the JVC D-VHS D-Theater HD tape format at a peak video bit rate of 24 Mbits/sec and saw that a perforated home theater screen masked the difference between MPEG-2 and WMV encoding and hid image details, while on a non-perforated screen. The difference was obvious to all observers. The Digital Cinema Initiative ran similar tests at the University of Southern California processing laboratory in Hollywood and found that a perforated movie screen mostly masked the difference between 2K and 4K projected images, yet the difference was obvious with a non-perforated screen." From the SMPTE Journal, Issue: 2008 01/02 January/February, Section Meetings Report, Washington, D.C.- October 2007.

Here's a link to Digital Cinema Initiatives, LLC: http://www.dcimovies.com/

R Johnson

05-06-08, 10:22 PM

"IMAX makes a dramatic comeback"

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2008-05-05-imax_N.htm

darinp2

05-07-08, 01:42 AM

"IMAX makes a dramatic comeback"

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2008-05-05-imax_N.htm
Interesting article.

I liked reading this:
"We had to wait for the technology to catch up," Wechsler says. "There were significant hurdles with something as simple as the color black, which is very important."Maybe they'll be willing to do some things to improve in this area, if they haven't already. I wonder if they could implement the fluid dynamic iris discussed in this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1023461

Not sure if it could take the heat from IMAX though. As I mentioned there, the positions for the dynamic iris could all be pre-done by a professional to avoid artifacts, since theaters (including IMAX) display the same things over and over.

This part of the article makes it sound like this is more than IMAX moving to throwing up the same 1080p images we see at most digital theaters:
They needed a light to get IMAX out of that dark period, and around mid-2006 technicians seemed to have a promising solution to the screen-illumination problem. They developed a process, and software, that fused and enhanced images from two projectors.

To preserve the trade secret, they called the technology a "flux capacitor" — a joking tribute to the device that made time travel possible in the 1985 hit Back to the Future.

The first big test for the $15 million development project took place in a Toronto warehouse. The company created a makeshift IMAX theater and hired a research firm that invited people to watch a series of clips and answer the question: Is this IMAX?

Satisfied with the initial response, the company in mid-2007 made a deal with AMC to turn one of its screens in Toronto into an IMAX venue and show the prototype to technicians from studios and theater chains.

As the positive reviews rolled in, IMAX had to grapple with one more problem — and a big one at that: Its business model had become obsolete.I wonder what kinds of things they've done, given that it says they enhanced the images. Hopefully more than just lumens.

--Darin

Art Sonneborn

05-07-08, 08:13 AM

Well at least the fuse two projectors line says more than just a single 1080 unit. I don't know I'm skeptical though. I think that this is a dumbing down for financial reasons and they are seeing how far down they can go and still meet some acceptability criteria.

Art

Sisyphus

05-09-08, 11:55 AM

Not unreasonable to assume they would employ edge blending. Planetariums have been doing it for years.

Alan Gouger

05-09-08, 12:23 PM

I think that this is a dumbing down for financial reasons and they are seeing how far down they can go and still meet some acceptability criteria.

Art

Reading the replies from many IMAX theater owners on film forums they are not happy, none made a dime off IMAX except for IMAX who pinched all the profits. Many expressed they cannot wait for their contracts to expire.

Art Sonneborn

05-11-08, 01:22 AM

Reading the replies from many IMAX theater owners on film forums they are not happy, none made a dime off IMAX except for IMAX who pinched all the profits. Many expressed they cannot wait for their contracts to expire.

Alan this is a sad time IMO. At least for folks like me who aren't in, IMAX was the best of the best. I always thought that the full theaters at IMAX conversions would have meant at least a small profit.Obviously I was wrong and that era is over.

Art

Cameron

05-12-08, 11:17 PM

Wow that is too bad. If what Alan says is true, IMAX has just killed itself. :(

Nk1

05-20-08, 06:05 PM

I want to see someone anyone show me a digital projection that matches a 70mm 15 perf IMAX shot and screened prints.

Art Sonneborn

05-20-08, 07:33 PM

I want to see someone anyone show me a digital projection that matches a 65mm 15 perf IMAX shot and screened prints.

Cineramax says his modified Barco 2K DLP is already there.:D

Art

GeorgeAB

05-20-08, 10:55 PM

Nk1

05-20-08, 11:51 PM

NHK's (Japan Broadcasting Corp.) breathtaking development of UHDTV (Ultrahigh-Definition Television) is featured in a couple of detailed articles in the April '08 issue of the 'SMPTE Motion Imaging Journal.' Other articles have also appeared in previous issues this year. Demonstrations of an 8K image with 22.2 channel sound have been offered in Japan and the US. Efforts have also been under way to expand the color space of digital cinema to meet or even exceed that of traditional film. This all bodes well for such potential applications as IMAX.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

Hi George,
I would love to see the digital cinema vs Imax 70mm 15 perf shoot out!
Perhaps this Ultra 8k can get close? Who knows, But at this point in time it would be cheaper to shoot and project at 65mm 15perf Imax and the quality is incredible! In the future I am sure we may see something come close but for now I just don't see thats where things are going. Especially since most are happy with 2k and have the world is happy with super compressed Mpeg 2 standard def and 64kbps mp3 audio files! We have taken some giant steps backwards in quality on some levels :)

Long Live Imax 70 mm film, 15 perforations per frame

Kevin Bright

05-21-08, 04:26 AM

Late June is the last installation of 'film based' IMAX. Everything moving forward is going to be 2x2k digital - stacked 2K DLP (OEM'd from Christie) and a re-badged GDC server.

Nk1

05-21-08, 10:24 AM

Late June is the last installation of 'film based' IMAX. Everything moving forward is going to be 2x2k digital - stacked 2K DLP (OEM'd from Christie) and a re-badged GDC server.

Worst news I have heard all day.
:mad::(

Imax is now nothing more then a expensive big screen to me. Hopefully the local science center will continue showing Film based IMAX doc's, once thats done, I am never going back unless some magical day comes when they can prove to me a higher image quality then 70mm 15 perf shot and exhibited film.
But I am not holding my breath.
:(

Art Sonneborn

05-21-08, 10:35 AM

Worst news I have heard all day.
:mad::(

Imax is now nothing more then a expensive big screen to me. Hopefully the local science center will continue showing Film based IMAX doc's, once thats done, I am never going back unless some magical day comes when they can prove to me a higher image quality then 70mm 15 perf shot and exhibited film.
But I am not holding my breath.
:(

There isn't any way that two blended 2K DLPs can touch real IMAX. Of course it should be better than 2K commercial cinema but we are at the end of an era.... very sad. :(

art

darinp2

11-03-08, 08:22 PM

Anybody have any updates on how IMAX is doing this? Like is it always 2 projectors? There is an IMAX screen opening at the Southcenter Mall south of Seattle this Friday and I'll go this weekend if some friends are free then. I can try to figure out what they are doing (like whether they have 2 projectors), but just wondering if anybody else has more information. There is something about the screen opening here:

http://www.bigmoviezone.com/txshows/theaters/index.html?uniq=1122
Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa: The IMAX Experience
Opens November 7th 2008
Theater Features: IMAX® digital projection systemI'm curious about whether they've done anything about on/off contrast ratio, but that movie probably isn't the best one to figure that out.

--Darin

coldmachine

11-04-08, 05:14 PM

I can try to figure out what they are doing (like whether they have 2 projectors), but just wondering if anybody else has more information.

I believe they use the combo of Christie's camera based Autostack system and the Christie Twist hardware/software combo to carry out any warping.

GXM

01-02-09, 02:49 AM

I have been in a booth and saw the screen of two of the new digital IMAX installs in so cal. It is a pair of DLP projectors side by side. On rails so they can spread them for service. They are inside a large metal housing with IMAX stamped all over them, but when you lookin the vents, you can easilly tell they are Christie projectors inside. There is no camera I could see, and no servos on the lens centering that I could spot. Accoriding to the people closly gaurding the secrets, they are hyper accurately overlaid exactly 1/2 pixel off both vertically and horizontally to totally cover the pixel grid and the special IMAX processor is taking a full 4096 x 2160 feed and feeding the two projectors the alternating pixel data. Of course for 3D they do run left eye / right eye with linear polarizers in front of the projectors. They have a cute robot arm with 3 positions, open for 2D, closed to douse between shows, and polarized for 3D. They use the douser infront of the projector for one big reason, thermal settling. They have to align the projectors when they are fully warmed up, and the internal douser allows the light engine to cool. They also want a hard douse to make the black screen totally dark between shows, electronic black is not that dark.

When I was in there, they were running "Eagle Eye" which was also running just a few doors down in 2K DLP and across the hall in 35 mm film. They were selling about 2 to 1 on tickets for the IMAX vs film, and the DLP was right between. Funny thing is they charge more for the IMAX, but the same for film and 2K DLP. Yes, more people paid extra for the IMAX. When they converted the room from 35 mm to IMAx, they only lost a couple extreme front corner seats due to the curve of the screen. It is perforated with the spekers behind. But this was odd to me. It is just 5.1 channel. The rack has just 4 stereo amps in the booth. One channel each used for left, center, right, l surr, r surr, and two channels for the sub array. The 8th amp channel is running the booth monitor speaker. Yup, passive x-over, not bi-amped. The amps are each rated at 2000 watts into 4 ohms per channel, so it is not meak, but I have set up many ordinary theatres with far more power for the size room. In fact the 35 mm film system that was removed from this very room was more powerful. And of course in IMAX tradition, they just stuck one huge speaker in each rear corner for the surrounds. They even left the string of JBL 8340A's from the film system, but no longer connected to anything.

Looking at the picture, it looked okay. First complaint... No masking. The screen is sized to match the 2048x1080 aspect ratio. True IMAX releases are supposedly going to use the whole chip for this wider 1.9 ratio. Flat 1.85 movies have side borders and scope films will have top bottom borders. It was BRIGHT, I would guess close to 20 fl on peak white, judging from the picture in the 2K DLP house which I know is set for the DCI 14 fl. The blacks looked good, but nothing shockingly dark, but overall, it was tough to compare the two directly because the IMAX looked like a CRT tube set with the contrast cranked way too high. Once my eyes adjusted to the high brighteness, it looked okay, but going into the 2K DLP house just looked like more detail in the dark areas to me. The film house was not a fair comparison, it was obviously a bit dim, I would say less than 12 fl open gate and the picture was not dead steady. Of the 3 my first choice would have been the 2K DLP. It just was the most pleasing to walk in and watch. The IMAX was more in your face.

As for sound, the 35 film house sounded best that day. This is odd being that Dolby Digital on film is only 348 kbps total for 5.1 audio. But that room was recently tuned up and sounded great. The 2K house sounded good, but I think the balance was a tick off and sounded too bright. The IMAX sounded okay, and was running at the right level, the theatre had the other houses a bit below spec, but the IMAX has no normal fader, it is locked so only the approved operator can touch it. The surrounds were hotter, but point source, and the sub seemed over boosted. Not bad, but just not as smooth and natural as the others. The IMAX and the 2K DLP should both be uncompressed 24 48 PCM. This is a very well maintained theatre, and going into any one of the houses was a very good, far beter than average movie going experience. With the larger screen, hot sound level, and bright picture, I am sure the average movie go'er feels they are getting something extra for the slight increase in ticket price. And the 3D with dual projectors should be a big plus. "Eagle Eye" was not a good judge of image resolution. I will say though that I was far less aware of the pixel grid when I was at the front of the stadium seats. I can't say if it was truely sharper, or if the offset just hid it better though. I will try to critique it a bit better if and when I get behind the scenes there again. All in all, it is a good picture and good sound, but it is certainly not a replacement for 15/70.

Lee Stewart

01-02-09, 10:20 AM

There isn't any way that two blended 2K DLPs can touch real IMAX. Of course it should be better than 2K commercial cinema but we are at the end of an era.... very sad. :(

art

Very sad indeed Art.

I have been an IMAX lover ever since I saw it in Montrel's EXPO 76.

I invested heavily in the company and it paid off handsomely when the stock ran up to $40 and split 2 for 1. Most of my stock purchases were in the $5 range. I sold all my stock shortly after the split.

It helped me to retire 10 years early - a life goal I set at age 30 - retire at 55 using my own money. Now 57.5 and retired for 2.5 years.

:( Of course the financial melt down has NOT helped me AT ALL.

I go to an IMAX presentation at least 3 times a month and have for over 20 years. To me IMAX represents the zenith of film and content presentation.

And now they are taking a GIANT leap backwards. . .

From "theoritical" 18K to 2K

http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/currentissue/9703.html

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Art Sonneborn

01-02-09, 11:02 AM

Great to hear you could retire early. I will not even be thinking of this I have three small boys at home. Anyway as far as IMAX all I can say is with the new system "Where's The Beef?":(

Art

mgoldsmith

01-02-09, 11:21 AM

if the IMAX source is 4K and there are 2 x 1080p PJ's being used what is the overall resolution to reach the screen (and in what direction)?

i was wondering if perhaps IMAX was going to employ DLP wobble-ation to acheive 4k out of the 2k PJ's ... as from what i understand, wobbleation can actually work both horizontally as well as vertically...tho with 2 PJs employed wobbleation would only be needed in 1 direction.....

Matt.G

Lee Stewart

01-02-09, 01:15 PM

Great to hear you could retire early. I will not even be thinking of this I have three small boys at home. Anyway as far as IMAX all I can say is with the new system "Where's The Beef?":(

Art

Good question!

My IMAX theater is a 15/70 300 seat theater with a 5 story screen (Ft. Lauderdale IMAX)

When we were discussing TDK in IMAX in a thread over at HDF - one of the posters had gone to the new White Plains, NY IMAX theater. From his comments:

No steep rake to the seats.

Screen is not 1.44 AR - more like 1.70

Screen was not much bigger than the biggest screen in the multiplex.

I understand IMAX's dilemia. The prints cost something like $90,000+ each.

But IMAX set the the highest level of theater presentation 32 years ago. They totally made 3D an enjoyable experience.

32 years later - they are trying to be a "slightly better than" Muvico theater chain.

"Say it aint so Joe!"

:mad:

Glimmie

01-02-09, 01:34 PM

Well if IMAX wanted to go digital projection they could adopt the NHK Ultra HD system that is 8K with 22.1 sound. But it's probably a pipe dream for the same reasons they are abandoning film - cost versus box office returns.

Lee Stewart

01-02-09, 02:46 PM

We look back and we see the demise of:

Cinerama

Todd-AO

Super Panavision

Ultra Panavision

VistaVision

Super Technirama

Is IMAX 15/70 to be the next entry on the list?

Art Sonneborn

01-02-09, 02:52 PM

We look back and we see the demise of:

Cinerama

Todd-AO

Super Panavision

Ultra Panavision

VistaVision

Super Technirama

Is IMAX 15/70 to be the next entry on the list?

It already is. I suggest that we all go see IMAX presentations that are film based ASAP to have the experience. Irrespective of the reason IMAX died it still doesn't feel any better.

Art

HTPC101

01-02-09, 03:31 PM

WTF why would they do that for! that is crazy!

R Johnson

01-03-09, 03:31 PM

We look back and we see the demise of: Cinerama, Todd-AO, Super Panavision, Ultra Panavision, VistaVision, Super Technirama. Is IMAX 15/70 to be the next entry on the list?
Yes indeed.

Although from a perusal of the IMAX website, I see that the next Transformers will use some IMAX shots.

A 12/12/08 press release says "As of September 30, 2008, IMAX has signed contracts for 207 IMAX digital theatre systems. IMAX currently has 38 digital joint-revenue sharing theatre systems in operation and is on track to install approximately 45 digital theatre systems by the end of the year. ..."

Lee Stewart

01-04-09, 07:40 AM

The day that my IMAX theater converts to Digital - that is the day I will no longer be a patron of that theater.

WTH? Charge me more for a ticket and give me less?

IMAX = Image MAXimum

:mad: :mad: :mad:

IMO - they could go to the IWERK's 70mm format if they want to save money:

70mm 8 perf vertical.

Lee Stewart

01-04-09, 02:09 PM

Yes indeed.

Although from a perusal of the IMAX website, I see that the next Transformers will use some IMAX shots.

Nope - it is just showing that the film will play in the IMAX Experience. Same thing with the new Star Trek movie.

The IMAX Experience - they show either a 1.85 or a 2.40 AR film in an IMAX theater - the screen is blank above and below the image.

IMAX's AR is 1.44

The next movie to have real IMAX sequences will be the next Harry Potter film. Some of the sequences are filmed in IMAX 3D.

R Johnson

01-04-09, 04:56 PM

Nope - it is just showing that the film will play in the IMAX Experience.
Michael Bay to shoot select scenes of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with IMAX(R) cameras

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - IMAX Corporation (NASDAQ: IMAX; TSX: IMX), DreamWorks Pictures and Paramount Pictures today announced that director Michael Bay will shoot key sequences of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with IMAX(R) cameras. Bay will integrate the IMAX footage with state of the art CGI to create an unprecedented look and feel for the highly anticipated sequel to last year's box office hit, Transformers. As previously announced, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will be released to IMAX(R) theatres simultaneously with the movie's wide release on June 26, 2009.

The movie sequences shot in traditional 35mm will be digitally re-mastered into the unparalleled image and sound quality of The IMAX Experience(R) with IMAX DMR(R) (Digital Re-mastering) technology. The IMAX DMR scenes will appear in the traditional "letterbox" shape, while scenes shot with IMAX's cameras will expand vertically to fill the entire IMAX screen.

"The extraordinary level of detail and intensity captured by the IMAX camera creates many exciting possibilities for us with this film," said Michael Bay, the film's director. "IMAX's all-encompassing format will take this story to a new level, and I am once again very excited to share The IMAX Experience with Transformers fans around the world."

Lee Stewart

01-04-09, 07:55 PM

I stand corrected.

IMAX corporation has announced that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will have three sequences shot with IMAX® cameras. So for those of you who like to check out the summer blockbusters on the really big screen, you’ll get at least three scenes specifically tailored for your viewing pleasure, with the rest of the film (up)converted to the IMAX format, but not shot using the special cameras.
http://screenrant.com/transformers-2-revenge-fallen-imax-rob-3836/

Please also notice:

This news follows the trend begun by The Dark Knight having several scenes shot in this way and the news that Jon Favreau will shoot Iron Man 2 at least partially in IMAX.

Dbuudo07

02-21-09, 01:56 AM

I always thought IMAX was the best image I've ever seen. My only small problem was that the blacks weren't dark enough, but it was acceptable when the image was that crystal clear and large. Now, they've down graded the image and I have no reason to go to any of the films shown there:(

I've never thought much of the sound at the IMAX cinemas around me. They always seemed weak in the bass department and surround effects never felt as...well surrounding(can't think of the right word(s) right now. Surround effects are more localized in IMAX theaters IMO. Probably due to the 5.1 setup.

I watched Transformers twice in 35mm and once in the IMAX presentation, and there was so much more acoustic impact in the 35mm theater. Especially in the lower frequencies and surround field effects. In movies with action scenes, bass is really important for that full emmersion feeling for me. I never get that "kick in the chest" in an IMAX theater.

Well, I'm going to stick to watching movies at home and non-IMAX theaters.

fastl

02-21-09, 08:07 PM

... Well, I'm going to stick to watching movies at home and non-IMAX theaters.....

I'm with you. Better sound quality for sure. As far as image quality goes, I saw "Shine A Light" at the local IMAX and the image quality was about the worst I've ever seen in a theater - sound was excruciatingly loud (like 95+ dbSPL). Performance was good, so it wasn't a total ripoff. If this is what you call quality, you can have it.

bboyneko

03-05-09, 12:19 PM

fastl

03-05-09, 07:33 PM

I never did run across any production notes on the visual part of Shine A Light, so I don't know whether it was shot on film or HDCAM (or both). Anyway, what it looked like was SD that had been upscaled and had no edge enhancement applied whatsoever. Gave it an out-of-focus lowres appearance.

Dbuudo07

03-12-09, 10:32 PM

I got to know my local Cineplex manager last night after some projection issues during "The International". He told me they're still using 70mm film in their IMAX and he hasn't heard of a change happening anytime soon. So I'll try to watch a few IMAX releases before they go digital. He's also going to let me tour the projection booths of their 35mm, digital, and IMAX cinemas. I'm very excited. I'll post what I find.

Lee Stewart

03-16-09, 11:35 PM

Lee Stewart

03-16-09, 11:38 PM

i've been trying for what seems eons to convince people that 35mm blown up via DMR to 70mm and then cropped/letterboxed is ******. That they are better off seeing the film in a good 35mm theater screen than paying twice as much for the "Imax eperience", especially since most of the imax screens now are digital and not real 70mm.

It makes me sad :(

:rolleyes:

There are currently more than 320 IMAX theatres in 42 countries. Approximately 65 percent of the theatres are located in North America, while the remaining 35 percent are spread internationally. More than 60% of the theatres are part of commercial theatre complexes. The rest are located in institutional venues, such as museums and science centers. The majority of IMAX theatres are equipped with IMAX 3D technology. IMAX's Digital projection system began its roll out in July, 2008. There are currently [50] digital projection systems in operation.

http://www.imax.com/corporate/

fastl

03-17-09, 08:03 PM

Lee, thanks for the link. Looks like they had a little bit of everything tossed in there. Unfortunately, no notes on the DI process, which is where the rubber meets the road. They probably had the NR cranked-up too high and it blurred the image. Sure did look bad when magnified on that big screen!

Lee Stewart

03-19-09, 04:27 PM

How well would Super 8 and Super 16 blow up to IMAX?

I can't imagine the results would be good.

Probably looked like one of those History Channel HD presentations about WWII when they intercut old news reel footage (upconverted to HD) and the "talking heads - I was there" HD CAM footage.

virusc

03-20-09, 06:04 PM

I saw watchmen in IMAX in Woodbridge VA. I could see the pixels from my 10th or so row seat. Very stable image(hope so it's digital) with black level similar to a normal 35mm presentation. Contrast was pushed like a jacked CRT set as already mentioned. I did see some light ringing a few times. Resolution was about the same as a good 35mm print or presentation and in some cases may have been more actual resolution than a 35mm print but it was not acceptable for me as it was not that much better and with film you don't see hard edges/pixels/etc so even if you are close you are not distracted by digital elements. Looked like a good 1080p bluray/HD-dvd.

positives- IMAX dlp was bright and was very even across the entire screen. the complete yellow digital opening of movie did not have dim edges or such which I expected. screen had a slight hot spot though. Overall. Picture was not as good as a 35mm print in same theater.

fastl

03-20-09, 08:29 PM

....How well would Super 8 and Super 16 blow up to IMAX?...

I was under the impression that the majority of the film was HDCAM. Maybe, it just doesn't upscale all that well.

Dbuudo07

03-20-09, 08:48 PM

Lee Stewart

03-20-09, 09:26 PM

An interview with IMAX's CEO:

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1779

Art Sonneborn

03-22-09, 02:04 PM

He says he will be doing in the digital world what IMAX film did in the film world. If this is so where's the beef ?

Art

johnbr

03-22-09, 06:30 PM

:rolleyes:Out to Lunch.

virusc

03-23-09, 06:39 PM

sierraalphahotel

03-24-09, 05:36 AM

again,
I saw watchmen in IMAX. It was digital as the opening IMAX info screen told me so and had TI logo and DLP. I also could clearly see the pixels as I already said. I figured with the amount of info I put in my last post made it clear enough. I also asked 4 people before going into the theater if it was IMAX film or digital. They did not know the difference. One employee actually told me only the sound and seats were different and the other 2 did not even know IMAX was different.

I think your observations may ironically be what IMAX will be counting on to an extent, in so much that the vast majority of people will still be suitably impressed by this new, if relatively inferior IMAX incarnation. It saves IMAX a lot of money (the most important thing to them) and while those who know their stuff will be disappointed, as you noted; some people won't even know the difference. :(

Before it closed down, the IMAX theater in my city simply could not draw in enough people. Generally speaking, people just saw it as 'a big screen' that cost a couple of quid extra to get into. A huge shame since I would have loved to have seen "The Dark Knight" as it was intended to be viewed.

Sean

Lee Stewart

03-24-09, 07:35 AM

Knight Director May Shoot Next Film In IMAX

23 March 2009 9:56 AM, PDT | From Studio Briefing | See recent Studio Briefing news

Director Christopher Nolan, who shot the action sequences in The Dark Knight using gigantic IMAX cameras, says that he "would be very interested in shooting a whole film in IMAX" since it would allow him to provide a theatrical movie that would "be distinct from the home theater experience." In an interview with the Collider website, Nolan said that the principal problem is the noise produced by the IMAX camera's mechanism, which apparently cannot be adequately contained by the usual soundproof "blimp" used for most studio cameras. "It's very, very hard to see how you do dialogue scenes," he said. "And the lenses are so wide, you're shooting this conversation, the cameras go 18 inches from your nose, basically, and it sounds like one of those small portable generators -- that's about the level of volume of it. So to just speak over that and to act as if that's not there is very tough."

Dbuudo07

03-24-09, 05:22 PM

again,
I saw watchmen in IMAX. It was digital as the opening IMAX info screen told me so and had TI logo and DLP. I also could clearly see the pixels as I already said. I figured with the amount of info I put in my last post made it clear enough. I also asked 4 people before going into the theater if it was IMAX film or digital. They did not know the difference. One employee actually told me only the sound and seats were different and the other 2 did not even know IMAX was different.

I didn't say you were wrong, just that I was told by a manager they were still using film. He's probably wrong, but he's going to let me check out their projection booths when I get time. Sorry if it came out the wrong way. I'll take pics of what I see so everyone can have an inside look. I haven't been to an IMAX presentation since Transformers(2007) and was disappointed with the audio.

Dbuudo07

04-30-09, 09:03 PM

virusc
I just came out of the IMAX projection booth at the Colossus in Woodbridge, ON. They're still using film my friend:D The only digital image is the opening sequence, which is when you saw the pixels and TI logo, but the films are all 70mm baby. I took pictures, but I don't know how to upload them:$ The projectionist/manager told me that they have no plans to convert to digital, because digital can't do the screen size they have. It was pretty amazing to see all the inner workings and the two behemoth projectors playing Monsters vs Aliens 3D. The film reels are enormous! I also found out why the sound seems to lack dynamics. He told me he runs the bass at -2 because of complaints by customers. He says when he screens movies for himself, he runs it at +2. So I asked him why he doesn't run it at 0, and he said he still got complaints:@ those people complaining should just stay home!! So they're going to let me join them for a private IMAX screening of Star Trek on Tuesday with the sound levels set right;) I'm very excited. I've never watched anything Star Trek related before, so this will be an experience.

Dbuudo07

05-06-09, 07:32 PM

I watched Star Trek(2009) in IMAX last night and all I can say is: WOW! Great audio design and the visuals were beautiful. I'm happy I got to see it on film. The projection manager set the audio levels to 0. He told me that the audio track was at first mastered too low, so they remastered it to a little higher than reference. The center channel strained a little, but other than that, it was great. Tons of surround presence, with excellent mid and low bass.
Here's my review of the movie:

Star Trek(2009)
Acting 1/1.5
Directing 1.2/1.5
Script/dialog 1/1.5
Cinematography 0.8/1
Editing 0.9/1
Audio 0.9/1
Costume design 0.4/0.5
Overall entertainment 1.7/2
Total 7.9/10
An intergalactic battle revolving around revenge, threatens the lives of billions of beings throughout the universe. In this perquel, the origins of James T. Kirk and Spock are explained. The acting takes a back seat to the great direction of J. J. Abrams, who provides an opportunity for viewers unfamiliar with the story, to enter into their world without feeling alienated(myself being one of the unfamiliar viewers). The story constantly moves forward throughout the film with some funny dialog and dynamic action sequences. I'm sure Trekies will enjoy this film unless they have some issues I'm unaware of. For the rest of you, give this movie a chance and I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

CINERAMAX

05-06-09, 10:14 PM

What aspect ratio Dub? 1.77?

Dbuudo07

05-06-09, 10:27 PM

No, I'm sure it was 2.35:1. Have you seen it?

CINERAMAX

05-06-09, 10:28 PM

No but I am a Trekkie of sorts, so will be...

Rotten Tomatoes had a perfect 100% review score for it as of yesterday (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/), it went down a bit but still excellent.

Dbuudo07

05-06-09, 10:32 PM

Tell me what you think when you see it, and what you think of my review. I started writting movie reviews lately. Keeps me busy;) I'm going to try to get them published in some small newspapers.

CINERAMAX

05-06-09, 10:36 PM

It is an interesting element weighing method, that's for sure. I'll let you know...

Fade2Black

05-12-09, 03:03 PM

So, Aziz Ansari, comedian and actor on 'Parks and Recreation', went to see Star Trek in digital IMAX. His rant can be found here: http://********/V9BFq

He also twittered about it, making IMAX one of the 'trending topics', leading more people to click and comment. www.aintitcoolnews.com and www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com picked up on it, even linking to the www.lfexaminer.com story from last October.

Amazing what 1 irritated comedian with a following can do these days in a short period of time.

Dbuudo07

05-12-09, 10:09 PM

I'm really happy that my cinema has no plans to convert to digital. The projection manager said they can't get enough light to produce a good image on the giant screen.

Lee Stewart

05-13-09, 08:02 AM

Cineplexes Getting IMAX, But Is It IMAX or CONSPIRACY?

http://gizmodo.com/5250625/cineplexes-getting-imax-but-is-it-imax-or-conspiracy?skyline=true&s=x

CINERAMAX

05-13-09, 08:26 AM

For the record I believe that the image of the newly DLP projected Image caN EXCEED IN ansi AND mtf THAT OF THE OLD FORMAT WHICH IS THE LOWEST ANSI CONTRAST you get from a public venue.

The greater perceptual Depth Effects offered by the Electonic system may have emboldened Imax executives to bite the bullet to pursue the Dual head DLP projection conversion.

While I have not seen the digital Imax yet, we have an excellent 70 footer down here and to be honest and AMC theater Monster Vs Aliens was significantly more enjoyable on real D than with the old Imax.

I will reserve my judgement on which Imax is best, but the old Imax already has 2 strikes against it on my book, low ansi and poor 3-D. How poor? Imax 3-D rates a maximum of 6 on a sc ale of 10.

I am sort of looking forward to giving the old Colossus(format) the thumbs down, my finger is itching.;)

Lee Stewart

05-20-09, 07:23 AM

Imax: Screen size not important

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i23722e25472e38b48e5dd5bd93ec0102

GI Joe Sixpack

05-20-09, 09:21 AM

Imax: Screen size not important

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i23722e25472e38b48e5dd5bd93ec0102They can spin it any way they want. It still ain't your father's IMAX.

Lee Stewart

05-20-09, 09:40 AM

They can spin it any way they want. It still ain't your father's IMAX.

I know.:(

I spoke to the manager of the Ft. Lauderdale IMAX theater about this and he said they have no intention of changing from 15/70. :)

It just irks me that they are using the distinguished of IMAX to sell a product that has nothing to do with what IMAX stands for:

Image Maximum

At least when Rolex decided to release a line of budget wrist watches, they didn't name them Rolex. They called the line Tudor. All it was was a Rolex watch with a different name.

markrubin

05-20-09, 09:43 AM

Lee

a reminder: please don't paste copyright articles: you can quote a few lines, you can paraphrase, you can post a link

Thank

sierraalphahotel

05-20-09, 01:41 PM

It is an interesting element weighing method, that's for sure. I'll let you know...

Keep an eye out for the Red Shirt (in the movie that is!)

Lee Stewart

05-28-09, 02:07 PM

A Rare Tour of IMAX Cameras

By Mark Wilson, 2:00 PM on Thu May 28 2009,

There are 26 IMAX film cameras in the world today. At IMAX HQ, I got to play with 4 of them (and take plenty of photographs for you).

http://gizmodo.com/5271638/a-rare-tour-of-imax-cameras

Ericglo

05-30-09, 12:07 AM

Peter,
I went to see Star Trek at the Aventura theater. Sorry, I didn't find the presentation superior to a regular movie for the price difference. It was sharper and the Ansi was probably better, but it left something to be desired. At the end of the movie, I went down to the screen. The amount of noise in the pic was pretty high. I was in the back row, so it wasn't visible, but may have contributed to a loss in pic quality.

I would like to try to do an A/B comparison between the Mall's Torus screens and the Imax. Maybe a couple of people could get together here and try it out. I think Sunset has a digital Imax now.

CINERAMAX

05-30-09, 12:33 AM

I have not seen the digital Imax, will try Sunset. They are supposed to be 3-D too.

BTW Dolphin Mall is my new reference for RealD, let me know if you want to go see anything 3-D. Am a sucker for that stuff.

Star Trek was a great movie and I did like it, but JJ Abrahams is idiotic in two ways:

SHAKING THE FREAKING CAMERA reduces the active resolution to 240 pixels, not to mention the Nausea factor.

His creatures (Cloverfield knockoffs) have Little Shop of Horrors Man Eating Plant features that are completely not believable

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/9186/STARTREKMONSTER.jpg

http://api.ning.com/files/4FYv-PPd-3pU8e12rhz4ZactaTeYUoEJMOzDCs-4VRJ9jmZDm25iqd2WRKZcU0wSJapX11hH4eh9KGZQypJ3amv0SKAL8OfB/audrey2.jpg

Alan Gouger

05-31-09, 09:42 AM

Eberts take on Digital Imax.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05/thats_not_the_imax_i_grew_up_w.html

CINERAMAX

05-31-09, 10:13 AM

Lee Stewart

05-31-09, 10:18 AM

His condescension to the 3-D medium shows his lack of technical understanding and capacity to sense nuance.

I haven't seen the new IMAX so I cannot comment on it but I see many advantages to digital over the sprocket based system for 3-D.

Trying to figure out how you can compare IMAX 2K Digital to IMAX 15/70 and think there is a comparison. :confused:

CINERAMAX

05-31-09, 10:26 AM

To me the Imax giant screen is neat but for 3-D it absolutely sucks in comparison to a non-too slanted RealD auditorium. The Monsters Vs Aliens Presentation at the Dolphin Mall KILLED the 80 foot Imax Autonation presentation in contrast, color and ABSOLUTE LACK OF GHOSTING. GHOSTING IS THE ANATHEMA of a 3-D system, and IMAX sure figured away to create a system where Ghosting cannot be removed by DSP (Ghostbusting).

Now I am looking forward FOR HT to the next generation Light Engine from Barco, with More contrast, perfect convergence, and deeper DCI color, use a Dolby 3-D system and on a Torus and ...

CINERAMAX

05-31-09, 10:28 AM

Go see UP there )(seat on the 9th row center) and tell me you absolutely found something wrong with it, or that you found the image too small. Not so.

R Johnson

05-31-09, 09:56 PM

I thought that the editorial by James Hyder that Roger Ebert mentioned was very good. See http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm

I share Roger's lack of enthusiasm for 3D.

Lee Stewart

06-03-09, 11:12 AM

Art Sonneborn

06-03-09, 01:38 PM

I thought that the editorial by James Hyder that Roger Ebert mentioned was very good. See http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm

I share Roger's lack of enthusiasm for 3D.

Yea, I watch way too much stuff that just simply is going to get nothing from 3D. I just don't see it making an impact on the experience of most of the types of films I enjoy most. Additionally the lack of detail from the low fL is a problem for me personally.

Art

proj35

06-03-09, 04:30 PM

"Trying to figure out how you can compare IMAX 2K Digital to IMAX 15/70 and think there is a comparison."

I feel terribly sorry that a large part of people who are going to see "Transformers 2" in IMAX will experience it in digital IMAX. What a waste !!! Some scene have been shoot with IMAX's cameras.

Since when 2 digital 2 K Christie's projectors can reproduce the very high definition of IMAX 70 mm film ?

Since when IMAX's screen are smaller than some traditionnal's 35 mm screen ?

I am a projectionnist in a french cinema. My big screen (2.39 shape) is 24 meters X 9.80 meters high. Is it IMAX ? Certainly not because it is too SMALL !!! IMAX = Image Maximum !

With a good 35 mm print, my century's projector (with 8000 watts xenon's in lamphouse) is certainly able to give a very good experience, close to digital IMAX (maybe less light).

5 dollars more for IMAX 70 mm on a hudge screen with a great geometry = OK, even for IMAX DMR (i don't like the letterbox effect on movie like "Watchmen" but it is inevitable or it's pan and scan).

5 dollars more for Digital IMAX on "small screen" = better experience than most regular theater but it's certainly not the IMAX i love.

Ericglo

06-04-09, 04:34 PM

Thinking about this some more, I believe the biggest issue isn't that Imax is doing a Liemax. The problem is that they are deceiving people with their name into believing it is something else (the original Imax). This can give a short term boost in Liemax attendance, but I wonder how many people will pay the premium in the long run.

P.S. - I saw the Liemax term in the comments section of the Ebert article. I think it is a hilarious term that accurately describes what they are trying to do.

johnty

06-04-09, 04:40 PM

So I watched that segment about IMAX Digital Versus IMAX 15/70 on that show Science of the Movies and I was disturbed by it.

They made like 15/70 was yesterdays technology and digital is now. The one thing they never discussed is the difference in the resolution, color bit depth, gray scale, etc.

:(

What a piece of PR fluff for IMAX. They fed the clueless host his lines and he repeated them faithfully. The CEO repeated his spiel about 'immersive' being more important than screen size, then the VP of all things technical takes host-boy into the company's screening room PJ booth, shows him the eleventeen rolls of film needed for the 15/70 PJs while holding a small box with a large capacity hard disk containing the same film which he then hooks up to a DLP PJ. Then the whopper. Since the resolution is the same, says faithful host, I'll take the hard disk instead of the film.

IMAX has stepped up the hard sell and most of the gullible public will buy it, hook, line and micro-mirror.

lordcloud

06-04-09, 08:08 PM

Lee Stewart

06-04-09, 09:36 PM

*SNIF*

I smell something in the air and it smells bad . . .

It smells like a big step backwards for movie presentation. :(

And the worse thing about this is that FINALLY, Hollywood has woken up to the possibilities of shooting in IMAX 15/70.

I saw The Dark Knight 3X in IMAX. And when leaving the theater, literally everyone couldn't stop talking about the IMAX sequences. The most popular comments were; "why don't they all shoot movies like that?"

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

CINERAMAX

06-04-09, 10:23 PM

I cannot opine yet on 2-D, for 3-D I believe digital is way superior.

darinp2

06-04-09, 10:38 PM

I cannot opine yet on 2-D, for 3-D I believe digital is way superior.I agree with a lot of the comments about these IMAX theaters in malls with digitals being a step backward, but for 3-D applications I wonder if having 2 digitals there will provide brighter images for 3-D, which is one of the issues 3-D struggles with. I don't know how bright the digitals they use are compared to those using single DLP projectors for 3-D though.

If Up was playing on one of these mall IMAX setups in 3-D I would probably go check it out, but Night at the Museum is playing on those around here and I think the new Transformers is next.

--Darin

CINERAMAX

06-05-09, 03:52 AM

Lee Stewart

06-05-09, 01:05 PM

Darin there are issues with Ghosting on the Polarized system that do not exist on a Ghost-Buted Real-D presentation, or a Dolby one. But the Buzz killer in IMAX is the mechanical sprocket induced Jitter Ghosting and the poor ANSI caused by those glasses.

If the advantages of NuvoIMAX in 3-D turn out to be substantital over the Dinosaur tech, then we have had a lot of people bitchin and finger pointing for nothing, and Ebert, well....

Jitter - are you saying that the 15/70 frame moves within the gate because if you are - that is just not true. IMAX uses a suction system to keep the frame rock steady in the gate.

Or are you talking about something else?

CINERAMAX

06-05-09, 01:13 PM

Ericglo

06-05-09, 01:45 PM

I agree with a lot of the comments about these IMAX theaters in malls with digitals being a step backward, but for 3-D applications I wonder if having 2 digitals there will provide brighter images for 3-D, which is one of the issues 3-D struggles with. I don't know how bright the digitals they use are compared to those using single DLP projectors for 3-D though.

If Up was playing on one of these mall IMAX setups in 3-D I would probably go check it out, but Night at the Museum is playing on those around here and I think the new Transformers is next.

--Darin

That is interesting that they chose Night instead of Up. A Pixar movie is guarantee of $100 million box office. As for Transformers, I wouldn't see it or any Bay movie.

Lee Stewart

06-05-09, 04:46 PM

Even if you use suction the perfs get larger and larger and it is well known that there is sprocket induced jitter on Imax 3-D prints that are no longer virgin.

I will try find the reference for you, it may be in the large format reporter website.

I was under the impression that IMAX 70mm is not like regular 70mm film. It is much stronger. In fact IMAX says that you can tow a car with it, it is that strong.

IMAX uses a stronger "ESTAR" (Kodak's trade name for PET film) base. The reason is not for strength, but precision. Developing chemicals do not change the size or shape of Estar, and IMAX's pin registration (especially the cam mechanism) is intolerant of either sprocket-hole or film-thickness variations.

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

CINERAMAX

06-05-09, 09:34 PM

The worst problem with the IMAX experience however is the incessant overuse of large values of negative parallax. They seem to converge for all shots in all films (with possible exception of some of the computer graphics scenes) at about 100M(300 feet) so that all objects ,except the most distant, have negative parallax and appear in screen space with the nearest objects having from a few cm to two meters of parallax, depending on the shot. With the most distant seats being only about 25M(75 feet) from the screen this means that the eyes are nearly always crossed(converged) in audience space and sometimes just a few meters from the viewers. Even from the back seats (where I strongly recommend viewers sit) this is hard to take and I pity those who sit in front.

Another problem is IMAX's failure to grasp the concept of the stereo window (or refusal to accept it as a sensible idea). When stereo images are displayed ,one has the choice of using horizontal shift of the images and masking of the right and left vertical edges, to create the corect window in the right eye sees more out of the left side of the window(movie screen) than the left eye and v.v. this creates a natural looking image in which objects with zero parallax appear approximately in the plane of the window, just as they would in the real world, looking out a window. IMAX however gives the entire film a negative parallax so that the entire image is projecting out into the theater and the right eye sees less of the image af the left of the sceen than the left eye. This make the image look odd and is very disturbing if one looks away from the center of the screen. Only in some of the graphics shots or in those reproduced from old stereocards does the window approach correct framing. I have been told that their animated short PAINT MISBEHAVIN has a correct stereo window.

In addition , there is often the excessively rapid panning and camera movement and jumping between large and small parallax values that make it difficult or impossible to fuse the stereo image. These problems are not unique to IMAX however and are nearly universal in 2D and 3D films.

Another problem which I have also noticed in other double strip 3D films, such as the Muppets movie at Disneyworld, is an asymmetrical illumination flicker of perhaps 0.5 or 1 Hertz which varies from one part of the frame to another and is most noticeable in brighter shots. Perhaps this is due to varying print density in the negatives or prints, shutter variations in the projectors or cameras or optical printers, or even variations in the LCD shutters, or a combination of them all. It is noticeable in either eye but is more striking binocularly.

CINERAMAX

06-05-09, 09:35 PM

As I detail my complaints with the IMAX 3D system, I must point out that not every viewer has likely had the same problems as I have had. I know I'm picky, I know I'm critical, I know I act spoiled; but with such a promise for and claim of greatness, I'd rather point out that I expect better. Also, as is the case in any product test, this experience could have been a fluke. But even if so, I expect better.

My first issue is with the glasses. One of the significant attractions of the new 3D technology is that the glasses are supposed to be better than those old cardboard, blue/red frames of the past. Aside from having better technology for the lenses, though, they should also be more comfortable than the analog glasses. They aren't. However, this is not a complaint about all digital 3D glasses. I really love Real D's glasses, which look and feel just like Ray-Ban sunglasses.

In contrast, the IMAX glasses look and feel cheaper. For one thing, they look like those giant novelty sunglasses that clowns wear. They feel like them, too. I think I understand why they are so big: the IMAX screen is so big and you need lenses that cut off as much peripheral distraction as possible and allow you to see as much of the screen as you are able. Fine, but then they need better support. The temples (the part of eyeglasses that go from the lenses to the ears) are long, thin plastic things that are either supposed to go on top of your ears -- as with most glasses -- or they are supposed to wrap around your head. I'm not sure of the proper way to wear them, but the wrap-around way seemed to make the most sense. However, either way felt awkward and uncomfortable.

Then there's the issue of my lenses being scratched, which I think may have caused the image to distort a bit for me. And I'm guessing that a lot of the lenses get scratched, because they are cheaply made, and they are stored badly. Plus, you have to return them to the theater after the show (I've been allowed to keep the Real D glasses, which cinemas claimed I was purchasing along with the ticket -- hence the added cost). So, they're probably recycled to new viewers, and will eventually become more and more scratched. Or we're just simply not allowed to keep them, and they're thrown out, which is just as more annoying because of the waste.

The next complaint is possibly related to the quality of the glasses, or at least to the scratch. More likely, though, it's related primarily to the quality of the technology. While watching Beowulf, I kept seeing a ghosting effect, which is when there's a ghost-like blur or doubling of the image. This pretty much only happened in the scenes in Grendel and Grendel's Mother's lair, which maybe had to do with the way the animation of those parts. But did everyone else see the same ghosting? I haven't heard about any other complaints, which means it could have just been my glasses -- perhaps due to the scratches? -- or the position of my seat.

If it's the glasses, well, I already addressed my problem with them. If it's the seat, then I'm still unforgiving. Sure, I did get to the theater in the nick of time and had to settle for a seat far to the right of the auditorium. I'm certainly aware that my experience could have been better had I sat in the center (I could have felt like I was inside the movie, as Mick LaSalle felt). But none of this is an excuse. Unless you charge more for the better seats, a la Broadway, etc., then fine. However, if you promise a certain experience, you must allow for all customers to have that same experience. Either the technology needs to be improved, or IMAX needs to have fewer seats. I'm sure the former is too costly and the latter is thought to be a ridiculous suggestion to theater owners. Okay, but there might one day be the alienation of all those people who ever sat in the wrong seats.

CINERAMAX

06-05-09, 09:39 PM

IMAX theaters use linear polarizers, meaning that if you tilt your head from the vertical, you'll be out of alignment with the projector's polarizers, and will see ghosting, as each eye's filter is allowing a little of the light from the other eye's image to pass through.

RealD (aka Disney Digital 3D) uses circular polarizers, which don't have this problem. And Dolby 3D uses narrow-band color filters that have nothing to do with polarization and are also not affected by head angle.

However, almost any of these systems can occasionally have ghosting in very high contrast, low-light scenes.

CINERAMAX

06-05-09, 09:46 PM

And for the first time, viewers had the choice not only of watching with Imax 3D and Real D projection technology, but also newcomer Dolby 3D.

Based on watching the movie start to finish three times, the 3D winner is Dolby 3D--and not just by a nose.

Dolby's technology gave a sharp image that showed every beard bristle, the colors were relatively rich, flicker from moving objects was nonexistent, but most significantly, the sense of depth was strong. Even the subtle differences between a character's facial features were perceptible, and group shots with a host of characters showed as true depth, not as a number of gradually more distant two-dimensional layers. I was truly impressed.

Before I go further, a qualifier. Three viewings of this movie was a lot to endure, given the comic-book-grade plot and cardboard characters, but it's not much as statistical samples go to judge projection technology.

It's hard to say how much of my experience was based on the underlying merits of the technology and how much on the particulars of the theater and viewing. But the Dolby 3D experience was significantly better enough that I'm comfortable awarding it the crown.

This crossing-the-burning-bridge scene was supposed to be a 3D spectacle, but it wasn't as immersive as it could have been.
(Credit: Paramount Pictures)

Compare and contrast
All three 3D technologies were compelling, but none was perfect.

My first viewing was with Imax 3D, which was displayed on the company's famously large screens.

Of the three, Imax 3D was the most in-your-face experience of 3D effects, with swords, castle spires and spear points jutting sharply out of the screen. The company deliberately adjusts movie perspective to achieve this effect.

"When you experience 3D with us, you experience the 3D at the bridge of your nose. It is an immersive, full-contact experience," said Greg Foster, Imax's chairman and president of filmed entertainment. And he's right.

However, I was distracted many times during the movie by "ghosting," in which some of the light intended for the right eye leaks into the left and vice-versa. In high-contrast moments, such as a brightly glowing, gold drinking horn held against a dark cave wall, the result is dim secondary copies of elements of the scene.

More disappointing, though, was my befuddled perception of some high-motion 3D scenes. I often found it hard to track objects and people during fight scenes with rapidly moving objects and a whirling camera perspective, for example.

So when I went to my second viewing, in Real D, I was favorably impressed. It wasn't as crisply focused or immersive as Imax 3D, but there wasn't as much ghosting, and I had much better luck keeping track of the fast-moving scenes. For example, in one early scene where King Hrothgar flings gold coins at his subjects, I actually saw coins rather than distracting gold flashes.

Instead of occupying most of my field of vision, the action seemed to take place in a box on a stage in front of the audience. And most of the action was "behind" the front of the screen.

Dolby 3D was promoted earlier on Paramount's Web site, but it's not an option for the 3D theater search process.
(Credit: Paramount Pictures)

The Real D audience seemed more wowed than Imax 3D viewers. Despite the more understated 3D, I observed a lot more flinching and startled gasping among audience members than in the Imax show.

Dolby 3D, though, beat out Real D for clarity, color, and coherent 3D. I was looking hard for ghosting and found it only twice, once with a sword and once with Grendel's mother's snaking tail. Many scenes that hadn't worked before came together--one example being the flying gravel pushed by Beowulf's ship as it's towed up the beach--and I found myself relishing the depth of flying dragons and other subjects. Falling snow, driving rain, and blowing embers imparted a feeling of space, not mere distractions.

That said, I still had problems. Not once was I able to make sense of the clouds of sand billowing around an underwater dragon or the froth of bubbles seen in the lair of the monster Grendel and his mother. A chain moving through a pulley knocked me cross-eyed. I also had troubles with foreground objects such as cave stalactites or characters half off-screen.

3D movies: The future
Beowulf is set in Denmark during the sixth century, the darkest of the Dark Ages, but watching it is a view into the future of movie making. I was impressed by various clips, but now having seen what a director with forethought can do with the technology and what it adds to the movie itself, it's clear to me 3D isn't just the flash in the pan it has been in the past.

For me, the 3D movie experience ranged from remarkable to gimmicky, but at no time did I find that it had faded unobtrusively into the background. No doubt part of that is because it's a spectacle that movie makers are using to pack theaters and charge premium prices.

The three 3D technologies all share a common principle: alternate rapidly between two slightly different vantage points, one for the left eye and one for the right, so human brains in the audience can reconstruct the third dimension just as they do in the real world. To keep left-eye light out of the right eye and vice-versa, the audience wears special glasses; the cheap cardboard hand-outs with red and blue plastic lenses are long gone.

There are differences, of course, in the projection technologies. Imax 3D, with about 120 3D screens installed so far, uses the oldest approach--two separate but synchronized reels of film and polarized light to split the views--though it will start going digital in 2008. Real D, whose technology is on more than 1,000 screens, uses a digital projector passed through a device that polarizes light one way and another for each eye.

Dolby 3D, which just entered production and so far is only on 75 screens, uses filtering technology so that the left and right eyes see images composed of slightly different hues of red, green, and blue. That approach caused problems for me seeing The Nightmare Before Christmas, in which elements of even red were hard to look at because the right-eye channel was significantly more orange.

Beowulf's computer-generated images are based on the real movements of actors digitized with motion-capture systems. Although I can't stand the characters' resulting rubbery features and robotic hands, the technique is a good foundation for 3D movies.

With the in-computer virtual "filming," the camera's perspective can shift gradually or dramatically, taking the audience with it. With computer-generated movies, those radical perspectives are nothing new, but 3D adds a new element. For example, when the still-unseen monster Grendel shatters open the door of Heorat, King Hrothgar's mead hall, the camera slowly moves to the front of the hall, and the sense of dread is all the greater as the vantage point approaches the entrance where we expect a vile demon.

Imax 3D gets top billing on Paramount's Web site.
(Credit: Paramount Pictures)

The movie, however, seemed adapted for the constraints of 3D display. One problem, for example, is that 3D movies are significantly dimmer, in part because each eye is effectively seeing black half the time and because necessary filters cut down light even more. In what was likely not a coincidence, Beowulf seems to take place entirely during the dark days of northern-latitude winter and is set mostly in wanly illuminated halls and caves.

Lee Stewart

06-05-09, 09:48 PM

^^^^

Are you comparing like films to different 3D technologies? Monster vs. Aliens seen in RealD, Dolby 3D and IMAX 3D?

If that is the case then yes - IMAX will suffer - because all you are looking at is a 35mm/DI blow up to 15/70.

When looking at a 15/70 native IMAX 3D film - there is NO comparison - IMO of course.

CINERAMAX

06-05-09, 09:54 PM

Digital 3-D is the buzz today in cinema. Innovation in both content production and in presentation has elevated stereoscopic 3-D to a quality of audience experience never before possible. On the content production side, live stereoscopic capture and editing techniques make possible productions like the upcoming U2 3-D movie. Improvements in computer graphics rendering, such as that developed by Sony ImageWorks, has led to visually stunning 3-D imagery seen in Beowulf. Conversion of live 2-D productions into 3-D, perhaps best known through In-Three's demonstration clips of the Star Wars series, will make possible the re-release of popular 2-D blockbuster movies in 3-D.

Advances in the presentation of stereoscopic images through digital projection, however, have made the resurgence of 3-D possible. The Texas Instruments' DLP Cinema™ technology makes it possible to project stereoscopic 3-D images with a single projector and with a quality level not possible with 35mm film. In contrast, LCOS projectors, such as the Sony SRX-R220/R210 cinema projectors now in trial installations, require two projectors to present 3-D images. By outfitting either the DLP or LCOS projector with a 3-D presentation kit and glasses (available from a few companies), the exhibitor has the opportunity to present 3-D movies worthy of a premium charge to audiences.

All digital 3-D content is distributed in a 48 frame-per-second (fps) format. In the stereoscopic format, images for the left eye are distributed at 24 fps, and similarly, 24 fps for the right eye images. (The sum of these image rates equaling 48 fps.) However, there are other factors which affect the single-inventory nature of 3-D distributions, leading to disparate distribution methods. To overcome this, Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI), a coalition of the six major motion picture studios, announced in April its draft specification for 3-D content distribution, stating that all 3-D presentation methods must utilize a common distribution format. While this ideal has not yet been realized in existing 3-D systems, the goal is technologically feasible. To accelerate progress, the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) is now standardizing a single 3-D distribution format. As importantly, the various providers of presentation systems either now or will in not-too-distant future offer systems that support single inventory 3-D content.

DLP technology can project 3-D images with a single projector by presenting the stereoscopic left/right image pairs sequentially. This means that a left image is presented, and then a right image is presented, and never will both a left and a right image appear on the screen at the same time. However, presenting left/right images to the audience at a 48 fps rate is less than ideal as the sequential nature of the images are perceivable and distracting. To overcome this, sequential projection requires that the stereoscopic pair of images are "flashed" on screen. This involves, within the time frame of 1/24th of second, the repetition of a left/right sequence three times before presenting the next left/right sequence. This process is called "triple flash." With triple flash, the rate in which images are presented to the audience is a speedy 3 x 48 fps, or 144 fps. The triple flash rate is a property of the projector, and is the flash rate employed with all add-on technologies for presenting 3-D images in the theatre.

Several add-on kits and glasses for 3-D presentation are now available. These can be categorized by technique: polarization, spectral division, and shutter glasses. While all three techniques can be used with DLP Cinema projectors, only polarization and spectral division work with dual-projection systems. Where the 3-D add-on technologies differ is in the method employed to direct left images to left eyes and right images to right eyes.

Polarization is the most widely used technique today. It involves optically encoding each left image with a particular direction of light polarity, and each right image with an opposite direction of light polarity. In the Real D system, the encoding takes place at the projector using an electronically controlled polarizer, which Real D calls the "Zscreen™." Images are decoded when the audience wears complimentary decoding polarized glasses. To allow head movement without upsetting the decoding quality of the glasses, Real D uses only circularly polarized filters in its system. Polarization alone, however, does not offer sufficient protection from crosstalk, also referred to as extinction ratio, with stereoscopic images. The audience experiences such crosstalk as a ghost in the motion picture. To enhance the ability of its polarization method to reject ghosting, Real D employs a "ghost busting" technique, which requires pre-processing of the images prior to projection. In its early systems, Real D's ghost-busting is applied prior to distribution. In future systems, ghost-busting will be applied in real-time by means of a processing box in the playback system.

Spectral division technology optically encodes left and right images by projecting each with a differently filtered spectrum of light. In the Infitec spectral division technique licensed by Dolby Laboratories, the light is filtered such that the left spectrum appears as white light (or near-white light), as does the right spectrum. In this way, this technique is importantly differentiated from the older, much lower quality, anaglyph method of using red filters for one eye and blue filters for the other. In Dolby's implementation, the light path in the projector is modified with a filter wheel to achieve spectral division of the stereoscopic images. Prior to projection, some color-balancing is applied to the image signal inside Dolby's digital cinema server. Complementary spectral division glasses are worn by audience members for decoding the images so that left eye images are seen only by the left eye, and right eye images are seen by only the right eye. To accomplish this, Dolby's glasses employ some 50 layers of thin-film coatings to create the appropriate optical interference filters. As interference filters require the light to pass through at a 90-degree angle, the glasses are curved to allow for eye movement without losing decoding quality at the viewer.

Shutter glasses, promoted for cinema use by Nuvision, take direct advantage of the sequential nature of the projected images. No special optical encoding is required with shutter glasses. To "decode" the sequential images, the audience wears glasses that allow only one eye to see the screen at any one time. By synchronizing the shutter-nature of the glasses with the flash rate of the projector, the audience correctly sees only left images in the left eye, and right images in the right eye. Synchronization of glasses takes place through infrared transmission inside the auditorium. To achieve the shutter action, the glasses must have battery-powered electronic circuitry in them that drives the liquid crystal (LCD) lenses.

The three methods described have important points of comparison. To preserve the polarized nature of the projected light in the auditorium, the polarization method requires the use of a silver screen. In contrast, the other methods, both spectral division and shutter glasses, work well with a normal mat white projection screen. Polarization, however, allows the use of very-low-cost glasses, such that they can be given away to the audience members. Both spectral division and the shutter method require expensive glasses that must be recycled (and thus regularly washed) for the method to be economical.

Manipulating projected light for the presentation of 3-D images has its price: all methods severely reduce the amount of light that reaches the eyes of the audience, typically around 85-88%. To the exhibitor, the light level determines the maximum screen size possible to present an acceptable 3-D image. Fortunately, it is acceptable to project 3-D images at significantly lower light levels than 2-D images, typically around 4 foot-lambert (ft-L), versus the standard 14 ft-L for 2-D. To compensate for low light levels, a high gain screen can be employed. Silver screens, of course, are very high in gain. It's understandable, then, that the polarization method, which requires the use of silver screens, adapts well to large screen applications, as indicated by IMAX's choice to use polarization for its 3-D presentation systems.

CINERAMAX

06-05-09, 09:58 PM

Under the sea, How was that shot? FANTASTIC MOVIE.

It suffered from low contrast and jitter/ghosting. Regardless of how accurate the 15(11/) sprocket thing is it is still two mechanical projectors requiring syncronization.

That and apparently the fact that it is OLD LINEAR polarization GHOST RIDDEN technology leads me to gives it the thumbs down and state that for 3-D DigiImax may be a GODSEND. Because I am not going to sit through an inferior 3-D experience again.

;)

CINERAMAX

06-05-09, 10:11 PM

The driving force behind 3D has been the filmmakers themselves that are planning plenty major 3D releases. DreamWorks Animation has committed for complete adoption of 3D by 2009 and filmmakers like James Cameron and George Lucas have made commitments for future projects. Recent release of Journey 3D and Fly Me to the Moon together with planed releases of DreamWorks’ Monsters vs. Aliens, scheduled for March 2009, and James Cameron’s Avatar in May 2009 are powering the 3D engine.

3D movies are captured with two parallel cameras which - like our eyes - are positioned a few centimeters apart, so each camera records a slightly different perspective. The 3D system directs the proper image to the corresponding eye, creating a depth enabled vivid view.

Throughout 3D history, there have been many different 3D techniques used in cinema. With 35mm/70mm film, 3D typically required two physical films, which were costly and nearly impossible to keep synchronization. The other option was to use one projector with low-cost red/cyan glasses. This technique works well on black and white movies but on colored movies it created unnatural shifts in the overall color balance that filmmakers and viewers found unacceptable.

The DCI Stereoscopic Digital Cinema Addendum, published on July 11, 2007 has defined the 3D parameters of Digital 3D Cinema. The specs calls for Single Inventory of Stereoscopic Digital Cinema Packages, forbidding the usage of special copies that require a unique color or density timing. This applies especially to RealD that had to be supplied with a special version of each movie due to RealD’s ghosting problem. The specs also define that Stereoscopic presentations shall interleave the left and right eye frames alternating at a 48 frames per second rate.

RealD became the dominant player in 3D digital cinema in the USA. RealD is running a single digital projector at 144FPS. To separate the images, they place the shuttering system (“Z screen”) in the booth between the projector and the porthole. RealD are using disposable circular polarization glasses. The usage of polarization requires the theater to change the screen into silver screen. Although the Silver screen reduces the quality of the screening, it is accepted almost by all the filmmakers (in some countries like France the use of silver screen is not acceptable) and even has 3D benefits like additional brightness. RealD have almost 1500 screens of which over 90% are in the USA.

XpanD became the dominant player in 3D digital cinema in the Europe. XpanD is running a single digital projector at 144FPS. To separate the images, they place infrared transmitter in the booth, facing the screens. The transmitter uses plug & play infrastructure and it is very easy to move it from theater to theater, a fact that exhibitors find very effective as they can move the 3D system from big screens to small screens. XpanD are using active glasses, which act as high-speed shutters synchronized with the frame being projected. XpanD works with regular white screen and provides the brightest 3D images. The disadvantage of XpanD is that the glasses are expensive and need to be cleaned and recycled. XpanD have almost 300 screens of which over 75% are in Europe.

Dolby 3D was originally developed for industrial application by the German company Infitec. It illuminates each image with light created from three slightly different primary colors. The light is pre-filtered by a spinning filter mounted inside the projector. Dolby’s glasses act as filters that allow light to pass that is made up of the primary colors intended for that eye while blocking the primary colors intended for the opposite eye. Dolby is running a single digital projector at 144FPS. Dolby works with regular white screen. The disadvantage of Dolby is that the glasses are expensive and need to be cleaned and recycled. Dolby have about 100 screens globally.

IMAX Digital / Christie 3D. IMAX digital and Christy 3D are almost identical solutions. Both solutions are using 2 Christie projectors and 1 digital cinema server. While IMAX benefits from the IMAX Brand and is priced accordingly, Christie provides a cost-effective solution for giant screens (screens over 22m wide that RealD / XpanD can not work with due to light limitations). Both companies are placing a static polarize filter in front of each projector. Both companies are using disposable polarization and require the theater to change the screen into silver screen. Migrating from 3D to 2D and vice-versa is extremely complicated, forcing the exhibitor to allocate the screen to 3D permanently.

RealD and IMAX believe that their low-cost glasses are a key advantage over XpanD / Dolby approach, which requires collecting, washing, and maintaining an inventory. XpanD / Dolby believes that maintaining the glasses is easily manageable and cites the advantage of using the existing white screen, which does not potentially compromise the 2D picture quality. XpanD also have an advantage in the projection booth, as the 3D system can be installed in 5 minutes, migrated from screen to screen, and provides migration from 2D to 3D without human intervention. IMAX and Christie 3D solutions are the brightest 3D solutions of all, but it suffer from ghosting due to alignment limitations.

All the 3D systems offer comparable 3D image quality, with each company claiming a slight advance over the other in several technical areas. All companies also claim to be competitive in overall costs. Real D offers three different business models: a flat-rate license, a revenue-sharing plan and a per-seat plan. XpanD & Dolby offers a flat-rate, one-time purchase without future licensing costs. XpanD are proven to be the best solution for multiplexes, RealD are probably the best solution for permanent screens, Christie 3D is the best solution for giant screens and IMAX is the best 3D Brand.

D6500Ken

06-06-09, 09:27 AM

I thought that the editorial by James Hyder that Roger Ebert mentioned was very good. See http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm

I share Roger's lack of enthusiasm for 3D.
+1

Ken Whitcomb

Art Sonneborn

06-06-09, 09:42 AM

I can hear the death nell from here.

Art

CINERAMAX

06-06-09, 10:53 AM

Yeah but I also can raise my yapping volume a bit down here to overcompensate. Can you hear me now?

I want my 4-D!!!! :D

Ericglo

06-06-09, 05:25 PM

Peter,
I have wondered what they did with all of those glasses. I would think a cheap recyclable set of glasses would be the best option for the casual movie goer. A person could watch the movie and then deposit them in a large bin at the exit. For someone such as yourself, they should have an option to purchase a much better set of glasses. Would you be willing to pay say $30 for better pair of glasses?

Lee Stewart

06-06-09, 06:07 PM

CINERAMAX

06-07-09, 05:30 PM

I would pay anything for the right effect.

Now I did see Museum at DigiImax at the Sunset Place. My problem with this presentation is not the size of the screen, the resolution, or the pixel visibility.

I have been bitching since Infocomm 2006 that the Christie HD-6k and 10 (older units not the m which i will see soon and it's Runco and Wolf derivatives to lesser less pasty extents) have been plagued by pastiness.

This ladies and gentlemen is a phenomenon that needed not rear it's disgusting head in the new Imax. In the past I said that Christie was the Hyundhai of video projector manufacturers very popular but lacking nuance; or that Belgian projector manufacturers given the same components could out-engineer Canadian projector manufacturers any day. Well, get out your yellow highlighters and let's highlight those two quotes again. Except I had never seen a pastier dlp image than this one so...

The New Joke Goes:" How many...? :D
... It apparently requires two Canadian projection system companies to screw up a perfectly good DCI image."

Perhaps under different installation conditions, and hopes are that it was the master and not the system per se if the pastiness is removed, there may be no need to cry wolf.

Ericglo

06-07-09, 06:54 PM

Lee,
Interesting website, but I was partially baiting Peter. If there were a pair of Schneider glasses that he thought gave him a much better experience and picture quality, then he would spend the money without a second thought. When Peter is passionate about something, he is like a lion going after a gazelle.:D

Peter,
Did you go up to the screen and see how much noise was in the picture? One thing Imax could do to justify this new theater is by making sure this is a better experience than a regular theater like THX used to be. Two things off the top of my head is make the audio system better not louder. Also, redesign the Exit signs and the other lighting so it doesn't project back onto the screen.

CINERAMAX

06-07-09, 07:07 PM

I did the noise is part of the same problem of the pastines.

It is like taking a 9 inch crt and compressing it into a 4 inch raster size where electrons are hitting one one top of another, even black as you point out.

If they can fix one they can fix the other. Have Mr. Gelfond let me give him a demo of stacked Barco's.:D :D

fastl

06-07-09, 08:42 PM

Pastiness? Would this refer to the results of excess NR being applied to the program material? Maybe an artifact of IMAX's DI processing?

CINERAMAX

06-07-09, 10:29 PM

In the HD-6k/10k, Runco vx-44/55 and Wolf is related to image noise, or noise reduction. In Imax could be a side effect of double stacking.

Art Sonneborn

06-07-09, 11:31 PM

Ok, here is the real bottom line, who wants to buy stock in IMAX ?

Art

CINERAMAX

06-08-09, 05:55 AM

Maybe you can add an Imax placeholder in your monopoly board next to Park Place.:D

GI Joe Sixpack

06-08-09, 10:44 AM

The driving force behind 3D has been...That makes three times in the same day that you posted copyrighted articles in their entirety (or nearly so). (For the most part, all web- or print- published material can be considered copyrighted unless it specifically says it isn't. A press release is an obvious exception, since the company publishing _wants_ it to be widely distributed.) I'm not trying to be the moderator but "we" have been warned before not to do that in the AVS Forum. And it's bad form with any material not to say where it comes from. Here are the sources of the three articles you posted:

http://knol.google.com/k/ami-dror/digital-cinema/34dmk169fdkbd/2
(Note that this article itself is for the most part a pastiche of sentences lifted wholesale from many sources, so is hardly original.)

http://www.mkpe.com/publications/d-cinema/misc/choice_in_3-D.php

http://news.cnet.com/underexposed/?keyword=Dolby+3D

(Ain't Google a peach?)

CINERAMAX

06-08-09, 11:06 AM

My Dear Sherlock:

Your powers of deduction amaze me. You must be a real Joe Six Pack, hows the trailer?

I told Lee Stewart I was going to look for quotes, and then I started pasting them. In the interest of knowledge I did so in th most time efficient manner. The snippets are all supremely interesting. If you want to properly frame them with certificates of authenticity be my guest. For the record these exihibits were shown in an educational fashion. Delete them if you please.

markrubin

06-08-09, 11:28 AM

Peter: you have a PM

GI Joe Sixpack

06-08-09, 11:43 AM

My Dear Sherlock:
Your powers of deduction amaze me. You must be a real Joe Six Pack, hows the trailer?.

Surprisingly roomy. But I admit it's not a standard model: It's a tandem version with a separate bay just for my Ferrari. :->

I told Lee Stewart I was going to look for quotes, and then I started pasting them. In the interest of knowledge I did so in th most time efficient manner. I actually read all your posts here but I didn't see that one. I did see this one:

Even if you use suction the perfs get larger and larger and it is well known that there is sprocket induced jitter on Imax 3-D prints that are no longer virgin. I will try find the reference for you, it may be in the large format reporter website.I for one am still looking forward to seeing that reference. But I know you're a busy dude...

Lee Stewart

06-09-09, 07:19 AM

Delay of next 'Potter' pic dings Imax

Shares drop 4% on news of two-week gap
By Paul Bond

June 8, 2009, 06:39 PM ET

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i6c932f87e11ed33ada6600181b00bb71

Art Sonneborn

06-09-09, 09:52 AM

Maybe you can add an Imax placeholder in your monopoly board next to Park Place.:D

* Doubt it would be on that end of the board *

Art

CINERAMAX

06-09-09, 10:05 AM

As it stands , agreed. But there is hope.

R Johnson

06-10-09, 10:37 AM

Imax Popularity Brings Large-Screen Copycats

By ANDY GEORGIADES

JUNE 10, 2009

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Imax Corp. should feel sincerely flattered.

The steady stream of Hollywood films flowing through Imax theaters, combined with the development of a digital-projection system, have resulted in a large expansion of Imax's commercial-theater network in the last year. With many of the best locations off-limits due to exclusivity agreements between Imax and customers, some cinema chains have come up with their own large-format-style auditoriums.

Cinemark Holdings Inc., which operates six Imax theaters, recently introduced a theater concept called Cinemark XD -- Extreme Digital Cinema -- boasting ceiling-to-floor screens and a custom sound system. Tickets cost $3 more than the regular price.

Likewise, AMC Entertainment Inc., which is in the midst of deploying 100 Imax screens, has an experiment called ETX, or Enhanced Theatre Experience, under way at a multiplex in downtown Toronto. Tickets cost two Canadian dollars (US$1.80) more than the regular price.

...

full article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124458899008199881.html

GI Joe Sixpack

06-10-09, 10:57 AM

Imax Popularity Brings Large-Screen Copycats
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124458899008199881.html
They better not take out the first few rows of seats or they'll run afoul of IMAX's patent:

http://patentfizz.com/fizzdisplay.php?patno=7106411

I get the feeling that IMAX will vigorously defend its new digital format. After all, it's the Holy Grail that the company says will bring it to profitability. And the company wouldn't want a competitor to dilute the value of the IMAX brand with a fake product - it's doing just fine in that regard all by itself, thank you. :D

Art Sonneborn

06-10-09, 11:47 AM

IMAX is done for. If it has no way to differentiate itself and is in fact making it harder on itself to do so they have no one to blame but themselves.

Art

lordcloud

06-10-09, 03:42 PM

If all IMAX has over other screens nowadays is the sheer size of the screen, then why wouldn't theaters start to make their own huge screen theaters. With the advent of digital cinema, theaters have the ability to do so and it's theirs. I would be doing the exact same thing if I owned a theater.

Here in utah, there was a Cricket big screen before they turned it into an IMAX screen. There was really no reason, performance wise, to make the switch to IMAX.

I'm looking forward to the local Cinemark big screens. Maybe it'll equal a bigger variety of movies I can watch on a really big screen.

GeorgeAB

06-10-09, 04:11 PM

Don't spread this around, but sooner or later the ticket buying public will probably realize that all they really need to do for a larger screen is......sit closer.;) The only way to get a higher quality image with a wider field of view is to increase the resolution, all else being equal. IMAX abandoning film for digital is their chief error. Digital can't equal IMAX film yet, in most regards. Maybe some day, just not now.:(

Lee Stewart

06-10-09, 07:45 PM

Still trying to figure these new IMAX screens out:

1. The AR is not 1.44 (the AR of IMAX) - more like 1.90
2. What happens when they show a made in IMAX film? Crop or LTBX?
3. What happens when they show a 2.39 AR movie? Crop or LTBX?

:confused:

R Johnson

06-10-09, 09:02 PM

Still trying to figure these new IMAX screens out:
2. What happens when they show a made in IMAX film? Crop or LTBX?
3. What happens when they show a 2.39 AR movie? Crop or LTBX?
IIRC, IMAX is using a pair of Christie 2K DLP projectors. So, my guess:
For #2, I'd expect black side bars (plus masking).
For #3, letter box or use the 1.26 anamorphic lens that Christie offers.

LilGator

06-20-09, 02:25 PM

Does anyone know where 1.44 70mm IMAXs remain? I'm in Greenville, SC and we don't have one so I have to drive anyway, might as well find one with the full experience.

AMC Concord Mills 24 - Concord, NC
Regal Stonecrest At Piper Glen 22 - Charlotte, NC

From what I can tell they're both flat screens (not omnimax domes). However, the IMAX website says the Regal is a 3D IMAX, which doesn't help either (I would assume all IMAX's show 3D these days), but is it probable it's a digital? The AMC it says opening soon, but has showtimes...

Augusta and Buford (Mall of Georgia) also both have Regal "3D IMAX's".

Seems a waste to go see Revenge of the Fallen in anything but OAR 70mm...

EDIT: Found this map of Real/Fake IMAX's that may help others: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&t=h&msid=113621990356540393221.000469b6c5915161c3667&ll=35.069767,-80.823412&spn=0.056761,0.11158&z=14

Cross Stonecrest in Charlotte, and Augusta off my list of options then... Buford is "disputed".

EDIT2: Found this list from LFexaminer showing the format (15perf 70mm, 10/8perf 70mm, and Digital; 2D/3D; and Flat/Dome): http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm

Looks like Buford, GA (Mall of Georgia) is a 15/70 Flat 400 seater ... yay. :D

Lee Stewart

06-20-09, 07:31 PM

LilGator

06-21-09, 12:20 AM

^^^^^

Thank you for those link(s) showing the real versus fake IMAX theaters.:)

Be a shame for someone to go to see Transformers 2 (which like TDK has real IMAX footage in it) and not see what you paid for. Same for the new Harry Potter film only this time it's IMAX 3D

No problem! I called up the Buford theater and they confirmed a 53ft tall screen, 70mm projection.

Looks like you have a great 15perf 70mm IMAX there in Ft. Lauderdale at the MODS.

Should be fun next weekend... :D

Here are some interesting stats from LFexaminer:

345 of IMAX theaters worldwide are full 15 perf 70mm (62.1%)
100 worldwide are digital (18.0%)

276 of 556 worldwide are in the US (49.6%)

154 in the US are full 15 perf 70mm (55.8%)
86 in the US are digital (31.2%)

Lee Stewart

06-21-09, 02:57 PM

^^^^

The problem I see is that when following the IMAX annoncements (which I always do) I don't see any about a new 15/70 IMAX theater - just IMAX Digital theaters. :(

biggblukat

07-01-09, 09:55 PM

I just saw Transformers 2 in an AMC retrofitted IMAX Digital Theatre at the Newport On the Levee 20 in Northern Kentucky. After hearing all the negative publicity regarding the Imax-lite cinemas, I was fairly impressed. I saw the Transformers 2 last week in a modern theater 35mm presentation with DolbyD EX sound system, and wondered how it compared.

For reference, I've been to two other true 70mm 'flat' screen IMAX houses, the 53 foot tall screen at Kennedy Space center where I saw 'The Dream is Alive" and the 26 foot tall screen at the Springdale 18 Imax-MPX 70mm theatre in OH where I saw 'TDK' last year.

Having never seen a digital projected DLP movie before, I was impressed with the 2.35 material. It looked very clear and film like, without any jitter that often bothers me or scratches, and did not appear to have any pixilating or DNR like some Blu-Ray disks. I was also able to see a greater amount of details than I did on the first viewing such as decals on cars and the like, but most likely because the screen was much larger/closer. Unlike the 70mm films, I've seen, the picture stayed clear and focused at all times, without any 'ghosting.' The two main sequences in the film that were extended in true IMAX did look sharper than the 2.35 material, but did not have the same 'POP!' as TDK city flyovers or action scenes.

Where I did get my extra $5.00 worth was the sound system. The uncompressed track and sound system were top notch. As bad as the plot, etc. in the movie are, all I did for the 2+ hr viewing was wait for the next bone rattling thud or explosion would come (and there were a lot). The sound system was no where near levels of distorting at any time, and blew the hollow sounding Dolby Digital track away.:D

For all of you lucky enough to have the choice of a 70mm print shown on a 50+ foot screen, be glad you have the choice. For those of us in smaller markets, the Digi-Imax is not as bad as some make it out to be. IMAX's marketing really should differentiate the three different IMAX 'Flat Screen' theatres; Large Screen 70mm, Smaller Screen MPX-70mm, and Smaller Screen Digital. I feel they are lumping everything into one brand, much like THX has done, badly diluting their brand name.

Ironically, there is a full sized IMAX theatre next to this AMC that opened in the early 2000's and closed only a few months later as it could not run profitably due to high operating costs and low turn-out. I understand the projector and sound system have been gutted long ago by IMAX.:(

While I was not completely blown away visually, the sound system was very impressive and was a sure step up from the 35mm film presentations locally available, and it's only 20 minutes from my home, unlike the Springdale, OH 70mm IMAX that is over an hour away.

Sorry for long posting. Just another person's bad opinion.

Dbuudo07

07-02-09, 11:53 PM

I saw Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen in a 70mm IMAX a couple of days ago, and it was incredible. The scenes shot using IMAX cameras delivered what I feel is the cleanest, most detailed picture I've ever experienced from a motion picture. Not to mention how amazing it felt to be placed within the screen width and height with absolute clarity. I just can't see how a digital version can compete with it. Truly something to experience. I'm going to watch it again:D

CINERAMAX

07-03-09, 07:28 AM

I just can't see how a digital version can compete with it. Truly something to experience. I'm going to watch it again:D

Fine I will take you up on the challenge. Will go this weekend to both 70mm and digital Imax, and compare.Twitted and all.

J.Mike Ferrara

07-03-09, 09:49 AM

I've seen 3 IMAX-released movies at the AMC Hoffman in Alexandria, VA: Watchmen, Star Trek, Transformers II. AMC uses IMAX DLP projectors

My impressions: The image is pumped up, like a plasma flat screen. Blacks are crushed, and whites are nearly blown. Skin tones are like sunburned flesh. The image is stable and clear, detail good. BUT, there is nothing even remotely to suggest that the image is film-like. It's electronic, digital. I'd loved to see a digital IMAX with a LCOS projector - I bet the picture will be better. 70MM would be the ultimate experience of course.

But the sound is HEAVENLY. Full, rich, balanced throughout the auditorium. Arguably the best theater sound I've ever experienced.

CINERAMAX

07-03-09, 10:13 AM

I agree that the image I saw at digital IMAX on the MUSEUM flick is exactly as you described (I thought it was perhaps the transfer and was going to give it another try), but to say that that is a deficiency endemic to all DCI projections IS FLAT OUT WRONG.

I believe one or two companies may be exhibiting DLP 2k protectors with contrast enhancements at CEDIA. Expect nothing but a game changer for the Ulta high end then.

In the film handlers forum one expert film projectionist did compare the Christie's (3pj's) the Barco's (2) and the Sony's (2), and the sony's were pooped on, the christies were deemed flat looking ( exactly what could be happening when you stack two flat looking images to try recreate some Imax). The film handler from Cyprus was highly complementary of the depth and sharpness of the Barco's .That is called MTF and that is where anyone with 150K can outperform a 70mm IMAX.

MARK MY WORDS THIS WILL BE PROVEN AT CEDIA.

R Johnson

07-03-09, 04:09 PM

Comments on Joshua Zyber on IMAX Digital Theaters:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zyber/HD_Advisor/20th_Century_HD_Advisor/2986

Dbuudo07

07-03-09, 10:05 PM

Fine I will take you up on the challenge. Will go this weekend to both 70mm and digital Imax, and compare.Twitted and all.

I can't wait to hear this. If my memory serves me right, a full IMAX frame has a resolution equivalent to 70 megapixels.

My projection manager friend told me that he's going to change the IMAX projector bulb next week and invited me to watch it again. He told me IMAX bulbs are changed around the 700 hour mark. He also said he'll turn up the volume to 0 for me, because he was told to keep it at -2. He doesn't understand why, since the speakers can handle much more, as can the audience. More to come on this after I watch it again:D

Dbuudo07

07-03-09, 10:21 PM

Comments on Joshua Zyber on IMAX Digital Theaters:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zyber/HD_Advisor/20th_Century_HD_Advisor/2986

I'm quite picky with video too and on some IMAX DMRs, you can see edge enhancement. The IMAX Transformers 2 was done well in my opinion and I've seen it in a regular 35mm film theater.

LilGator

07-03-09, 11:48 PM

Comments on Joshua Zyber on IMAX Digital Theaters:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zyber/HD_Advisor/20th_Century_HD_Advisor/2986

Theoretically I'd assume there are 35mm prints of the film, 70mm IMAX prints, DCI 2K files, and digital 2K IMAX files. He seems to be speculating/implying that the IMAX digital's have undergone DMR (DNR & EE), but that doesn't seem to make sense since they aren't upscaling the 35mm material to 70mm.

If not, I imagine the IMAX digital theaters are great to see standard 35mm films in judging by the AQ/SQ reviews I've heard.

I just don't see how the digital IMAXs can compete with 70mm shot material like TDK or TF2.

1) The sheer resolution difference between 2K and 70mm is staggering- very similar to HD vs SD (35mm vs 70mm is probably closer to 720p vs 1080p). Even with the best in digital 2K projection and source, you have to have a very poorly setup 70mm projection to not resolve more detail. It just isn't there to begin with, and of course, the CGI was done in 4K. 2K DCI has a hard enough time matching up with, or overtaking 35mm film. To think it's in the same ballpark as 70mm is highly doubtful...

2) Because the screen is smaller and you are sitting further away, the digital IMAXs don't look terribly bad. Until you've seen it, you don't realize the *experience* you get by sitting within 1x screen height to a 53ft tall screen with the higher resolution material. Projected to the same size, with the same seating distance, the dual 2K digital IMAX presentation would be very weak in comparison. Of course, the digital may do better with the 35mm material, though that depends on DNR/EE applied to either.

3) Because 70mm IMAXs are 1.44 in shape (as is the 70mm material) and digital IMAXs are ~2.07 in shape (can anyone confirm projected AR of 70mm shot scenes?) you immediately lose 30% of the picture cropped top and bottom (unless 35mm 2.35 scenes are projected windowboxed with 1.44 scenes OAR; also weakening the resolution vs seating distance vs size experience even more in comparison).

All that said, I have to agree that while I much prefer DLP currently over 35mm, for say a film like Star Trek, my experience with a 70mm IMAX and source (Revenge of the Fallen) was hands down the best I've had.

Ericglo

07-03-09, 11:49 PM

The only thing I remembered about the sound was that it was ear drum breaking loud.

Dbuudo07

07-03-09, 11:59 PM

I remember seeing some slight EE during The Day the Earth Stood Still in IMAX DMR. It didn't distract me, but it was noticeable during some scenes with medium lighting. I still enjoyed the feeling of being in the movie, because of the size of the screen. I find most of the films are mastered well, and don't seem too soft at all. Mind you, when you're that close to the screen, it is easier to see the flaws.

Dbuudo07

07-04-09, 12:00 AM

The only thing I remembered about the sound was that it was ear drum breaking loud.

Really? I wanted a little more punch from it. Maybe your projectionist didn't do a sound check.

Ericglo

07-04-09, 12:03 AM

Could be. I wasn't the only one who said it.

Dbuudo07

07-04-09, 12:08 AM

That's what I'm talking about. He may have had the sound bumped up for a previous movie that was mastered low, and didn't bother changing it for Transformers 2. Or he never changes it. The film is mastered a little hot. Imagine if you watched Terminator Salvation in the same cinema:o You're eardrums would have popped!

Ericglo

07-04-09, 12:10 AM

No, it wasn't Transformers. I would never pay to go see any of Michael Bay's trash.

It was Star Trek and to my recollection there wasn't anything else playing in the theater besides that movie.

Dbuudo07

07-04-09, 12:14 AM

Ok. Well he told me Star Trek was originally mastered too low, so they remastered it at about 3-4db hot.

And I mean from the last movie they had showing before Star Trek. Could have been weeks ago. The projectionist might be a lazy ass and never does a sound check.

Lee Stewart

07-31-09, 10:16 PM

I asked the IMAX folks about the controversy about the multiplexing of IMAX screens - ie, smaller IMAX screens that are dwarfed by the traditional multi-story screens - and they said they hope to have a rebranding announcement in the next month. In-house they seem to call it IMAX MPX (multiplex), which sounds good to me

http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/20219/1/COMIC-CON-09-WHERE-THE-WILD-THINGS-ARE-HAS-BIG-IMAX-PLANS/Page1.html

biliam1982

10-17-09, 11:10 PM

http://www.chud.com/articles/articles/20219/1/COMIC-CON-09-WHERE-THE-WILD-THINGS-ARE-HAS-BIG-IMAX-PLANS/Page1.html

I look forward to seeing this in my IMAX. I was mad when we didn't get Cloudy w/ a chance of meatballs. So I just had to watch Harry Potter and Star Trek again. :D

biliam1982

10-17-09, 11:10 PM

Was there ever any more info regarding the rebranding?

"I asked the IMAX folks about the controversy about the multiplexing of IMAX screens - ie, smaller IMAX screens that are dwarfed by the traditional multi-story screens - and they said they hope to have a rebranding announcement in the next month. In-house they seem to call it IMAX MPX (multiplex), which sounds good to me."

Dbuudo07

10-18-09, 12:29 AM

At the AMC in downtown Toronto, it is called EXT. I think it has something to do with the word Extreme:confused:

Lee Stewart

10-18-09, 04:25 PM

Imax Signs 100-Theatre Deal With AMC EntertainmentTM

About IMAX Corporation

IMAX Corporation is one of the world's leading digital entertainment and technology companies. The worldwide IMAX network is among the most important and successful theatrical distribution platforms for major event Hollywood films around the globe, with IMAX theatres delivering the world's best cinematic presentations using proprietary IMAX, IMAX ®3D, and IMAX DMR® technology. IMAX DMR is the Company's groundbreaking digital remastering technology that allows it to digitally transform virtually any conventional motion picture into the unparalleled image and sound quality of The IMAX Experience®. IMAX's renowned projectors and new digital systems display crystal-clear images on the world's biggest screens. The digital system being developed by IMAX is configured for an IMAX MPX-style auditorium, which is designed specifically to enable multiplex operators to more cost effectively enter into the IMAX theatre business. The IMAX brand is recognized throughout the world for extraordinary and immersive entertainment experiences for consumers. As of September 30, 2007, there were 296 IMAX theatres operating in 40 countries.

IMAX®, IMAX® 3D, IMAX DMR®, IMAX MPX®, and The IMAX Experience® are trademarks of IMAX Corporation. More information on the Company can be found at www.imax.com

http://www.investor.amctheatres.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=280307

biliam1982

10-18-09, 04:43 PM

Imax Signs 100-Theatre Deal With AMC EntertainmentTM

About IMAX Corporation

http://www.investor.amctheatres.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=280307

As always, thanks for the link.

Thats what I thought it was going to be. A current theater thats just remodeled. I wonder what else they do besides putting in a screen and a projector. Maybe the furnishings are changed? How much of the audio equipment do they have to switch out?

Dbuudo07

10-18-09, 04:50 PM

I hope they switch out all of the audio. AMC has the worst audio of any multiplex theater I've experienced.

darinp2

10-18-09, 05:41 PM

I hope they make sure new setups can be upgraded to 4K from TI or they swap out machines when the 4K DLPs are available. Would be interesting/sad if TI and their partners release 4K projectors and they go in some theaters while IMAX stays with 2 of the 2K projectors instead.

--Darin

Dbuudo07

10-18-09, 06:08 PM

I think it would be pretty embarassing/foolish for them to not upgrade when 4K machines are available.

CINERAMAX

10-18-09, 06:17 PM

igital cinema pioneer Barco and server technology leader Doremi are proud to announce another industry first — an integrated 2K/4K media block designed for Barco Series-II projectors. Barco and Doremi will showcase this industry leading technology on the show floor at ShowEast.

In June of this year, Barco, Cinemark and Doremi announced an exclusive agreement for the delivery and installation of over 3,000 projectors in more than 300 US theatres. This agreement was the first-ever to include Texas Instruments’ Enhanced DLP Cinema® 4K technology and Doremi’s integrated media block (IMB). Now, Barco and Doremi are extending this advanced technology to all exhibitors.

With the IMB installed in a Barco Series-II 4K-ready projector along with Doremi’s external ShowVault™, Barco customers can now choose the most future-proof digital projection solution in the industry. If the customer elects to project in 2K, the integrated media block keeps content secure by moving the digital video decryption from outside of the projector — to inside the projector. When Texas Instruments’ Enhanced DLP Cinema® 4K technology is made available, if the customer elects to project in 4K, the integrated media block can deliver 4K with a simple software upgrade.

“We are thrilled to continue our technical development and partnership with Barco, and to offer the digital cinema industry the first-ever 2K and 4K solution with an integrated media block” said Michael Archer, Vice President of Digital Cinema at Doremi. “In addition to providing the highest level of content security, our IMB product offers a future-proof configuration, based on the system’s ability to support both 2K and 4K resolutions.”

The Barco/Doremi integrated 2K/4K media block provides a total of 4096 x 2160 pixels of resolution, and requires just one server rather than the four synchronized HD video servers needed until now. The solution offers exhibitors the opportunity to utilize a single server manufacturer across a digital cinema multiplex, with the ability to freely mix and match 2K and 4K technology while maintaining the same server hardware.

“Barco and Doremi have been leading innovation and setting digital cinema milestones for almost a decade,” said Todd Hoddick, Vice President of Digital Cinema for Barco, North America. “By combining our talents, we’re taking a huge step forward in the evolution of digital cinema. Together, we are making digital cinema simpler, more secure, and more profitable for our customers.”