Originally Posted by hconwell
Lee ... you may know something I don't ... but I thought the new DLP Imax platform was 4K. If it is, it's still vastly inferior to 15/70.
- they are using Christie DC PJ's and Christie doesn't make a 4K PJ. Only Sony and JVC do.DLP invades IMAX, replaces film"At the heart of every DLP chip is an array of up to 2.2 million microscopic mirrors which switch incredibly fast to create a high resolution, highly reliable, full color image."http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/11...replaces-film/
Imax is doing to Imax what Cinerama did to Cinerama. The course they're on now will bring an end to an extraordinary era.
IMAX is "pimping their name" to make a company expansion at the cost of the quality of the product delivered.
Do they even show IMAX nature and documentary films in these new "less than IMAX" theaters? Or are they strictly using them for Hollywood movies to be . . . Ahem . . . shown in IMAX.
For me, my local IMAX theater (Ft. laud) is part of the Museum of Science and Discovery. It is a real IMAX 15/70 theater and according to the manager - they are going to stay that way.
The issue that has been huring IMAX is the print costs. A 35mm film print costs about $1200. An IMAX 15/70 print costs about $40,000. A IMAX 3D 15/70 setup makes the print(s) cost around $80,000.
And here is the big
Hollywood is FINALLY looking at IMAX for movie making. It started with The Dark Knight, continues with Transformers 2 and is followed up with the new Harry Potter film (segements filmed and shown in 15/70 IMAX 3D.)
How is that going to be presented on one of these "fake" IMAX screens?
Second point ... people in this thread have been bad mouthing anamorphic photography. I don't think that's warranted. Panavision's anamorphic lenses are fabulous ... they do not, by most DPs accounts, degrade the image. Yes, early B&L CinemaScope lenses were mediocre at best ... but not the glass from Panavision. An Imax native frame with a, say, 1.5 squeeze would produce a fabulous image. But they're (Imax) going the other way ... trying to reduce their size & quality to save money ... so adding extravagance to the process is just not in the cards.
All just my opinion.
Anamorphic cinematography does have some limitations and issues that flat/spherical does not have. So what did they do to get a 2.39 AR? They invented the Super 35 format.
Picture quality from film has always been based on "real estate" - how big is the taking negative.
IMAX was never intended to have anamorphic capability. As has been mentioned - there is no reason for it. And it would present a real problem for the audience, that being there wouldn't be anywheres in an IMAX theater where you could sit (like today) and have the entire screen fill your field of view (last few rows in the theater). The screen would be too big. It wouldn't fit in the building!
My IMAX theater is a 300 seat theater with a screen measuring 60' x 80' That is a 1.44 AR. The screen is literally floor to ceiling, wall to wall. If it was still 60' high and had a 2.35 AR - that would make it 141 ' wide.
The photo on the top is what my IMAX theater looks like:http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...num=3&ct=image
Which brings up another issue. Do these new IMAX theater have that same very steep rake in the seating positions? Or it is normal stadium seating like a regular theater?