W32.Mydoom.AU@mm wrote:

In a perfect environment with incredibly slow film stock you could pull 12K from it, but it's always scanned at 8K for distribution.

Is that right? Interesting, thanks for the info. From what I've read, Kodak claims a frame of 35mm film is around 6K, and a frame of IMAX film is about three times bigger than that (65mm running horizontally). So that's a theoretical 18k according to IMAX, but you're right that it's more realistically 12k. The other difficulty in comparing the two is that film resolution is not measurable in the same way that digital is. After a certain point contrast and color reproduction become more important than resolution alone anyway. I will have to see Interstellar in a digital theater to compare, but I was certainly struck by the vivid colors at my 70mm screening. One sequence that stood out to me in particular was when

Cooper and Murph, prompted by the "ghost's" message, go on the road trip to future NASA. Some of the landscape shots were really breathtaking. There was one specific shot with clouds (kind of at dusk, if I remember correctly) that blew my mind.

Kodak is able to get away with the 6K claim based on a 2008 scientific study by Arri, which I've linked below. Essentially, if you use a 50 ASA/ISO film stock (most productions use a 200-400 ASA stock, with the rare exception such as Inception using 100), at 25 fps, in an perfect, locked down environment, you need a 6K scan to avoid side-effects such as aliasing. The findings conclude that, under perfect conditions, a 6K scan of Super 35mm is needed in order to produce a 4K DI without any quality loss. To clarify, 35mm =/= 6K, however given the inherent differences between grain patterns and a pixel grid, a 6K scan is needed in order to get a 4K DI without information loss. The study also stated that a 6K scanned 35mm image, mastered in 4K and projected in 4K, will result in an image without any information being lost from the original frame. As evidence of Kodak using this study as a source, I've provided their own hosted document of the study below the full findings. Thus, Kodak's 6K claims are half truths.

In real world scenarios with more realistically rated stocks and diversely lit environments, the general findings in the cinematography community have been that Super 35 resolves to around 3-3.5K, anamorphic 35 to 4K, and 5/70mm to 7K. Obviously when comparing this to digital, things get murkier on what "resolution" actually means, as the sharpness portion of the Arri study clarifies.

https://hopa.memberclicks.net/assets/do ... ochure.pdf

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/arri4K.pdf

Has anyone see it on full size IMAX (but not 70mm)?


I've see it twice on 70mm IMAX - debating whether I should see it a third time on digital IMAX, or if it'll be a letdown after twice in 70mm. I'm specifically referring to AMC Northpark in Dallas.

rhonkt wrote:Has anyone see it on full size IMAX (but not 70mm)?

I don't have a choice. I was on vacation this week and drove 180 miles each way to see 70mm. The nearest one near me is an extra hour away each way. So I'd like to see it again. The bad news it's digital imax but the good news it's the biggest movie screen in the state. That's only 90 miles away. So I'll see it in both but have to settle for digital.

The worst part of my experience was the audience. I had the best seat but the ass in front of me kept looking at his phone and so the bright screen was distracting and the dick next to me kept talking to his friend but saying what just happened..... "Oh wow I can't believe he just opened that door. Haha he drank his coffee.".... Except it was plot related

I've see it twice on 70mm IMAX - debating whether I should see it a third time on digital IMAX, or if it'll be a letdown after twice in 70mm. I'm specifically referring to AMC Northpark in Dallas.