or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Mission Impossible 4 confirmed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mission Impossible 4 confirmed - Page 9

post #241 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

I was gonna say, that isn't a method exclusive to JJ. It was also done in Tron Legacy.

You have a 2.35 projection system, Oink?

Was tron in imax? I know the ar changes for the cgi scenes (we'll the light bike and when he first arrives in the cyber world) and goes back to the original when the flynns reunite.
post #242 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

^^^ besides if I'm not mistaken many critics praised the spectacular action and the 'fresh air' Woo brought to the franchise back then. It's like Armageddon but the other way around: when it came out in 1998 it was the worst film ever and now almost 15 years later everyone says guilty pleasure and all-around spectacle... With MI2, looks like it sucks in 2011 but was cool in 2000...

[edit] oops, I meant 2012!

That is ...very true imho
post #243 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

Was tron in imax? I know the ar changes for the cgi scenes (we'll the light bike and when he first arrives in the cyber world) and goes back to the original when the flynns reunite.

Yes, Tron was in IMAX. I think the scenes in the digital world were all in IMAX and outside was a different aspect ratio, if I remember correctly.

I wish I could have seen MI4 in IMAX(well IMAX lite) but they didn't have a show start before noon at the local AMC theater. They charge $6 for shows in the regular theaters before noon and $11 for IMAX. After 12PM it's $14.50 for IMAX, so the $6 show(Digital projector) before noon gets our money. Although if AMC had true IMAX theaters,the higher price would be worth it for some movies.
post #244 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

Was tron in imax?

Not filmed in IMAX, but shown at digital IMAX (aka Lie-MAX) theatres. TRON:Legacy was shot using HD cameras. Their 2K resolution doesn't come close to what IMAX film is capable of. For a comparison, when ILM had to scan in the IMAX footage Transformers 2, they did so at 12.5K resolution. The director of TRON saw Dark Knight and apparently fell in love with the shifting aspect ratio. For the digital IMAX screenings, parts of TRON are matted to 2.35 while some scenes are opened up to show the entire 1.78 frame. For regular theatres, the image stays 2.35 throughout the movie. Matting and unmatting the image doesn't make a movie IMAX.
post #245 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

No. TRON:Legacy was shot using HD cameras. Their 2K resolution doesn't come close to what IMAX film is capable of. For a comparison, when ILM had to scan in the IMAX footage Transformers 2, they did so at 12.5K resolution. The director of TRON saw Dark Knight and apparently fell in love with the shifting aspect ratio. For the digital IMAX screenings, parts of TRON are matted to 2.35 while some scenes are opened up to show the entire 1.78 frame. For regular theatres, the image stays 2.35 throughout the movie. Matting and unmatting the image doesn't make a movie IMAX.

What a shame. So basically it was just an ar change.
post #246 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Not filmed in IMAX, but shown at digital IMAX (aka Lie-MAX) theatres. TRON:Legacy was shot using HD cameras. Their 2K resolution doesn't come close to what IMAX film is capable of. For a comparison, when ILM had to scan in the IMAX footage Transformers 2, they did so at 12.5K resolution.

Please keep in mind when we dealing with two different techs ,So we cant just translate numbers like that.

The higher you scan a chemical medium, the more accurate your digital copy will get, even if the actual resolution on the medium is lower.

The same thing can be said if you have digital master, the bigger the filmframe its transfered to, the more accurate your chemical copy will be.

Pixels and Dots dont play well together.

Someone posted here a test were IMAX people tested checkboard pattern on IMAX film. At 4K the checkboard had turned into grey. They couldnt detect any resolution with a 4K source. So somewere between 2K and 4K for a digital camera would be enough for an IMAX presentation.

But when we dealing with filmsources we get new numbers since we get chemical to digital to chemical process. With information loss for each generation.
post #247 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

I was gonna say, that isn't a method exclusive to JJ. It was also done in Tron Legacy.

May be why I hated the movie.

Quote:


You have a 2.35 projection system, Oink?

Nope, never will.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lwright84 View Post

JJ was just the producer on this film guys. Oink, you need to try and find valid reasons to hate on Abrams (or you know, like him instead).

OK, my bad....I thought he directed this one too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Exactly. And with Abrams, being a "producer" means: "Sure I'll put my name on the movie so that you can get financing, if you put one of my buddies in it for 3 minutes of screen time. Deal? Great! See you later. Good luck."
Abrams had nothing to do with the direction of this movie.

Kinda like the producer, George Lucas, had nothing to do with the direction of Ep.3?


Quote:


Next, oink will say that the asepct ratio changes in this movie are all the fault of the HD DVD format war. That inevitably enters the argument whenever he doesn't like something.

OF COURSE it does!!!
post #248 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Nope, never will.

Brave words. I've heard them before, from thousands of species across thousands of worlds, since long before you were created. But, now they are all CIH.

Quote:


Kinda like the producer, George Lucas, had nothing to do with the direction of Ep.3?

Did anybody direct that movie? I thought most work were done in post.
post #249 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Did anybody direct that movie?

George Lucas wrote and directed Episode 3.
post #250 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

George Lucas wrote and directed Episode 3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...id=lv4Potdpjhw

5.42 in.
post #251 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Someone posted here a test were IMAX people tested checkboard pattern on IMAX film. At 4K the checkboard had turned into grey. They couldnt detect any resolution with a 4K source. So somewere between 2K and 4K for a digital camera would be enough for an IMAX presentation.

When 70mm (5 perf pull-down) films like 'Baraka' and 'Lawrence of Arabia' are benefiting from 8K scans, I have trouble believing that IMAX (15 perf horizontal) can be matched with "somewere between 2K and 4K" digital.

Also, what do you mean by "They couldnt detect any resolution with a 4K source."?
post #252 of 398
I could see pixel structure at my IMAX and I was sitting in the 2nd to back row. The actual IMAX sequences looked gorgeous though.
post #253 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

George Lucas wrote and directed Episode 3.

Damn Tequila!!!
I meant Ep.6!
post #254 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Damn Tequila!!!
I meant Ep.6!

It's okay, Oink. *pats on back*

They're both equally terrible. Easy to confuse.
post #255 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

When 70mm (5 perf pull-down) films like 'Baraka' and 'Lawrence of Arabia' are benefiting from 8K scans, I have trouble believing that IMAX (15 perf horizontal) can be matched with "somewere between 2K and 4K" digital.

Because film and digital is very different. Lets say I have a black and white checkboard. Its 1920*1080 squares. I film that checkboard and each square ends up on the film. Now I scan the filmframe in 1920*1080 but its not perfectly aligned so each sensor redout gets ½ white and ½ black information. The average information becomes gray. This is later repeated for each square. So our 1920*1080 checkboard has now become 1*1 grey pixel.

Lets increase the scan to something closer to 4K like 3840*2160. Worse case scenario of the scan gives us 1/4 error in the sensor readout. So we have 75/25 % ratio of half of the pixels and 100 % on the other half.

And this goes on. The higher the scan resolution the more accurate scan you will get. And this one was easy. Imagine if it was 1920*1080 round dots instead of squares that we had filmed.

Quote:


Also, what do you mean by "They couldnt detect any resolution with a 4K source."?

The black and white checkboard looked like a grey wall at 4K.
post #256 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

The higher the scan resolution the more accurate scan you will get.

No disagreement there, but getting back to my original comment about the resolution of Tron in IMAX vs film-based IMAX: do you think that 3840 x 2160 digital can capture the same detail (have the same resolution) as a 69.6 × 48.5 mm piece of film?
post #257 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

No disagreement there, but getting back to my original comment about the resolution of Tron in IMAX vs film-based IMAX: do you think that 3840 x 2160 digital can capture the same detail (have the same resolution) as a 69.6 × 48.5 mm piece of film?

No IMAX should have higher resolution, but in an IMAX theater the resolution difference wouldnt be detectable for the viewer.
post #258 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

No IMAX should have higher resolution, but in an IMAX theater the resolution difference wouldnt be detectable for the viewer.

IMAX prints (not negs) have an effective resolution of 6120 x 4500. You think viewers can't distinguish that from 3840 x 2160 when comparing on one of those 6-8 story high IMAX screens?
post #259 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

IMAX prints (not negs) have an effective resolution of 6120 x 4500. You think viewers can't distinguish that from 3840 x 2160 when comparing on one of those 6-8 story high IMAX screens?

According to the test that IMAX did, they couldnt see beyond a 4K source.
post #260 of 398
Here it is

http://magazine.creativecow.net/arti...ture-of-pixels

Quote:
A number of years ago some IMAX engineers – and I don’t think IMAX ever let these guys out of their lab again -- did this wonderfully elegant experiment at the Large Film Format Seminar at Universal Studios Imax theatre. They showed this film they made that began with 2 rows of 2 squares: black white, white black, as if you had 4 pixels on the screen.

Then they started to double and double and double the squares. Before they got to 4K the screen was gray. Do you know what the means? There was no longer any difference between black and white, which is what allows you to see sharpness. It's the contrast that we see, not the actual information. Technically, the MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) was zero at 4K!
post #261 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

According to the test that IMAX did, they couldnt see beyond a 4K source.

That's at odds with what an IMAX senior VP/engineer said a few years ago, explaining that out of 8700 resolvable vertical pixels on the negative, viewers could only discern about 4500 vertical pixels in the final print. The skeptic in me should probably stick to the less-than-4K number from the article you linked to. Thanx.
post #262 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

That's at odds with what an IMAX senior VP/engineer said a few years ago, explaining that out of 8700 resolvable vertical pixels on the negative, viewers could only discern about 4500 vertical pixels in the final print. The skeptic in me should probably stick to the less-than-4K number from the article you linked to. Thanx.

I'm not sure where the truth lies, but I have to admit, I'd rather trust the scientists than the marketer/scientist hybrid ^_^. Even still, having resolution slightly beyond what we can detect would be ideal, yes?
post #263 of 398
THIS IS AN MI 4 discussion not IMAX science!
post #264 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by SbWillie View Post

THIS IS AN MI 4 discussion not IMAX science!

Im enjoying this discussion! Time to make an IMAX thread!
post #265 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

Im enjoying this discussion! Time to make an IMAX thread!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/searc...rchid=20538810
post #266 of 398
Quote:

Incredible! Theres already threads on IMAX! haha thanks
post #267 of 398
Jeremy Renner unscathed in bloody Thai bar brawl

Renner was throwing down some real life MI.
post #268 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

Jeremy Renner unscathed in bloody Thai bar brawl

Renner was throwing down some real life MI.

"Jeremy Renner was indeed in a bar in Phuket Thailand as a vicious attack on a patron took place but was not injured or involved. He exited as the fight took place," Renner's publicist said in a statement.
post #269 of 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

I could see pixel structure at my IMAX and I was sitting in the 2nd to back row. The actual IMAX sequences looked gorgeous though.

I agree. There was a very noticeable difference in quality when the screen opened up. Gorgeous indeed
post #270 of 398
Went to see the movie Saturday night. Would somebody please tell me how Tom Cruise could kick just about everybody's butt throughout the film but had a hard time dispatching his last opponent at the end? (not saying who for the sake of spoiling the film)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Mission Impossible 4 confirmed