IMAX NEWS

Yeah there is some great technology being implemented in avatar. I just hope imax doesn't deliver another aweful print like transformers 2 was. Imax shot films look great projected on imax 15/70 prints. 35mm using dmr are not. Good thing about avatar is that its shot digitally at 2k resolution. This means all that is really required is upscaling. If avatar is upscaled to 8k Then the imax experience will be good. Only suggestion is if you can adopt the dolby digital method for 3D. You can still use the silver screen and you would just use a spectral divison filter for each projector. I have seen all 3d methods utilising glasses and nothing comes close to the 3d quality of dolby's. Perfect colour, no ghosting, greatest depth perception. I have found 2 detailed reviews stating the same thing. Could you please report back as too how avatar is being transferred to the imax 15/70mm prints. I love the imax intro as its 3d without glasses and pristinely sharp and vibrant. its a shame non imax films aren't coming out so well. I will be seeing this at rouse hill cinemas as they have dolby 3d with the best digital projector i have seen to date. I might see this in imax but after seeing 3d trailer in dolby digital 3d theater, im sold. When you watch the trailer the movie looks ok but when you see it in 3D its incredible. Its really creates dimensional space rather looking like a pop up book. hope you guys can get BARAKA with the new remastered 70mm prints. SAMSARA will hope fully be released this year which would coincide well.

Uh Chris, Dolby 3D is actually the weakest of the three 3D formats. Too many cinemas have been retrofitted with Dolby 3D because it is the cheapest available option. I've never experienced more ghosting than with Dolby 3D. Not to mention that in this new era of 3D, they are still using colourized - as opposed to polarised glasses. They still use green/yellow lithographic lenses of the 50s era and their glasses are narrow and bulky - blocking your peripheral vision in what is supposed to be an immersive experience.

I just hope with a film as colourful as AVATAR, IMAX account for the tinting of the glasses and adjust the brightness of the print so it isn't too dark with the glasses on. I remember seeing The Dark Knight last year at IMAX and it was projected very poorly with regard to brightness - incredibly dark which made night scenes a strain. One should not have to strain their eyes on the biggest screen in the world.

i agree even with the dark knight in a regular theater. It was too dark. In regards to the glasses. I have shutter glasses. There reasonable but a high refresh rate is a must and a brightness adjustment. as ghosting is very common. I don't agree with your statement regarding dolby's method being weaker. Statistics will tell anyone that Real D is the most wide spread method as its cheap and already accessible. Problem is that the polorised lenses are not very forgiving when you tilt your head. The quality is good, but it has been known to distort-but few notice. Dolby's method for 3d looks like the old anaglyph method on the surface, but is a lot more sophisticated than it seams. It shares a similarity with the 50's lithography to show 3d. However, The method of interference is totally different and far superior. Instead of adding 2 seperate colour filters to a print and using corresponding filtered lenses to decode 3d. Dolby uses a method called spectral division. Images are filtered on seperate left and right frames like polorise method. It works by creating a 50+ layers of interference colour filters that blocks a particular frequency of colour/light (Red, Green, Blue). A second filter is made likewise that blocks another band of Red, Green, Blue. A filter wheel is placed between the light source and imaging device. Half the wheel has Filter of RGB-1 and the other half is RGB-2. The glasses are made of glass with RGB-1 filters on left lens and RGB-2 filters on right lens. Once the film is ready the colours will be a tad off due to blocking of a colour band. A colour encoding box is used to pre adjust the colour so when the image is projected the images are colour correct. Polarise is infact the cheapest with cheap disposable glasses and simple filter. Dolby is the most expensive lens due to the filters and the lens being gl***. Polarise isn't better than spectral division (dolby). A lot comes down to personal preferance. They both have their strengths. But based on several reviews i have read and my own experience with both methods. Both do a good job in 3d. But dolby's depth perception is greater and ghost free, i can't account to how you saw ghosting which is unfortunate. I have seen avatar trailer in 3d through dolby method and i can tell you its truely convincing. I have seen the 2d trailer in 2D on 35mm and quality was no where near as good regardless of 3d. My concern is that it will be poorly scaled like transformers for the big screen. the fortunate part is that it was recorded digitally which means you can achieve a very clean upscale. Oh and in regard to the lenses being colour filtered, it's actually very slight and is nonexistant with both eyes open due to colour correction. And there is no colour filtering added to picture itself. It only lets it a particular frequency of red, green and blue for right and left images. Each image appears near white, when viewed together the colour is compensated. In an idealistic sense i get your point, but if you look into it in detail you see there is more to it. It's a bit like saying petrol cars will flog an electric car in a race, and yet its an electric (white zombie) thats best. Ideally people would say why do we want colour filtered 3d over polorise. aesthetics go only so far. Nice to hear from you Adam, in the end its your own experience that counts regardless of technology or what anyone says.

Have either of you (Adam and Chris) bothered to check with IMAX Darling Harbour (or will they reply to this post) as to what the actual projection techniques will be? I am thinking given the spiel on this web page re their projection technology that IMAX DH will be an awesome viewing experience for Avatar. I am traveling from Brisbane to see the movie on IMAX so my hopes are that IMAX DH will deliver the goods. I know the movie will. Thanks for the technical details Adam/Chris. Some interesting reading.

Re: Avatar - you can dress a hog in a ball gown... but it's still a hog. The title of this news article may be more portentous than people realise.

yes i have asked about the avatar print, just waiting for a reply. Yes imax has a huge screen but you need a really good celluloid print to justify the screen size. image qaulity is more important than screen size. imax shot films will look good, but if you show a 35mm/digital film printed on to imax. You need to upscale correctly. DMR doesn't seem to help as de-graining and resharpening reduces detail and blurs. I think anyone who watched transformers 2 and the harry potter trailer will vouch for that.

Avatar will screen at IMAX in Darling Harbour in 3D on the world's biggest cinema screen. The film itself will be projected using a 15/70mm print, created via a process of digital remastering using proprietary IMAX technology (known as "DMR"), which enlarges and enhances the image specifically for the giant IMAX screen. Being James Cameron's first feature film since Titanic, and coupled with the leading-edge technological input of IMAX Corporation's DMR team, you can expect that your Avatar experience at IMAX in Darling Harbour will be nothing short of spectacular.

thanks julie, my only suggestion is that you simply should upscale to 8k resolution.as the film was recorded digitally. no heavy dmr should be needed. I saw avatar trailer in 3D (Spectral Division not polarised) in a really good dolby theater at reading cinemas and it was incredibly good. The advantage a high end digital theater will have is that It will show the film at the or near exact resolution it was shot so you will get a pristine image. I don't mind polarise method, it works but, in my experience no where close to dolby's. I hope the picture is good. But i think you will need to upscale high to fillout the detail on such a large celluloid print. I just don't like 35mm being DMR'd to imax, The imax coundown intro was very 3D but once the harry potter trailer started and transformers 2, it was horrible. Best of luck if i hear good reviews comparing regular theater to imax version of avatar i might see it there. Only thing i found annoying is that james cameron had to cut the film down from i said 168 minutes to 150 to accomodate to the imax platter. But i think it silly when you tke into account its only at 2K movie, which would better suit a regular theater. Thanks for update julie

No point telling Julie this information. You need to contact the actual IMAX corporation and protest their DRM process. IMAX Sydney isn't part of the IMAX corp. So they have no say in what the print should look like and how it's done.

I know what you're saying Chris. I know that Dolby implements the synched shutter process, but too often I find that the blocking of certain colours doesn't allow for the full spectrum of any particular colour to come through. What I mean is that the colours in between the reds, blues and green become distorted. Pinks, purples, oranges, yellows etc often look out of place compared to the original print. With tinted glasses, which I agree is a much simpler and disposable option, it simply becomes a matter the exhibitor being distributed a brighter print or the projectionists themselves re-calibrating the settings on the projector (easier for a digital projector which IMAX DH doesn't have). I find that with Dolby, although the process is more complex (and thus the glasses are most costly), it results in headaches nonetheless - not to quite the same degree as the old red/blue lithographs, but far more noticably then any Real D or IMAX method. It should be noted that whilst the glasses are most costly for Dolby 3D, the retrofitting of the cinema itself is a FAR cheaper option for cinemas as it doesn't require a silver reflective screen. Real D does require silver, which is why Real D cinemas end up being more costly, despite the cheaper glasses. I've experience ghosting in both My Bloody Valentine 3D and Up using Dolby. The only time I've experienced any bit of ghosting with Real D (tinted) has been in a few action scenes of Coraline (however, that wasn't in a theatre with a digital projector). Ultimately, the main reason I would never want IMAX to go the DOLBY 3D route is because of the previously mentioned bulkiness of the Dolby glasses that block peripheral vision (which would prove a major foible in the IMAX space). Not being able to see the edges of an object - that which allows us to discern it as 3D, I find subverts the whole experience of 3D. And that is before all the minute colour headaches. What I'm really wanting to know is if IMAX DH will ever bite the cost of upgrading to a digital projection system. I know that Cameron's next target will be to shoot a film to play at 48fps (which I don't see happening for a LONG time in theatres). Great discussion chris.

Thanks adam, oh and my sincere apologies for directing my comments towards sydney imax. I should speak with imax corp as sydney's imax is an indepent company with licesned imax equipment. I don't think imax should go didgital. I wouldn't disagree with an 8K digital projector for ome movies and live events. The image qaulity in 15/70mm is far superior to a digital system because it capture are larger range of colour. Imax looks great providing its shot well on imax. I think it would be ludicrous to change to digital, it's pixel perfect in clarity but lacks in image qaulity. The highest know resolution digital projector is and 8K being developed by jvc. Imax 15/70 prints hold 10000x7000 = 10K. I also get sick of hearing people complain that imax is old because its uses square shape film rather than widescreen. What knuckle heads don't realise is that since imax is far larger than any other image medium it is actually wider and much taller than widescreen prints. General cinemas i think should be getting films on 70mm film. It is far better than 35mm and is naturally widescreen without requiring any anamorphic compression. Watch baraka on bluray as its currently the best available bluray in quality and has a perfect explanation on the advantages of 70mm film.In regards to the glasses. the only issue i have with the dolby method is that on the edge of the lens when tilt your head you get colour distortion. but you really have to tilt alot to get it. Technically imax could use the dolby method but they probably wouldn't bother as the prints would have to be colour corrected first. The ads shown on the overly enlarged digital projector will show you just how poor the qaulity looks compared to the imax projector. Oh and the other thing. Yes james cameron said he wants to shoot at 48 frames. Imax can shoot at 48 frames but the issue is the film platters. Going from 24 frames to 48 frames means twice the amount of film running through the projector. Avatar has been shortened for all theater screening to accomodate for the imax platters.

AVATAR may not have actually been shortened. It was rumoured for along while that it would have a 163 minute run-time (which is managable since Watchmen was 162 minutes. However, Cameorn has said the 2h30m runtime it is currently locked at is exactly what it was supposed to be. He knew the film would play in IMAX and designed it in mind for it. There is no other cut apparently. I'd be happy if this wasn't true however, as there is nothing better than a Director's Cut from James Cameron. And something definitely has to be done about that runtime. You have to image that now that IMAX has branched out to commercial films in the last few years, they would be thinking about future epics that will clock well over their constrained run-time that they wouldn't want to miss screening. Eg: The Hobbit films.

I really need to check for typos before I click 'post'.

lmao, i do the same thing. Yeah a directors cut would be nice. I find it funny how so many people say avatar was made for the imax when ironically it isn't. it's at 2k resolution compared to 10k of imax. The sound would be of imax quality though. See the problem is that if james cameron said to weta and ubisoft that "right, we are making this for imax, and i want it for 15/70mm film". You would hear the pitchforks and torches headed for cameron. 10k resolution would be a hell of a lot of work and rendering. No cgi company would do 10k for a feature film, way to long to render and they would want alot of money to compensate. Better yet james should tell them he wants to do it at 48 frames, thats when brains start to fry. I am all for imax on imax material, but i have never seen a non imax film shown at imax that looks better than the original prints. because avatar is a digital format it should look good upscaled to 8k for imax.

We've just programmed more sessions, so Avatar ticket sales are avalaible now through until Dec 31. What better way to end the year/ welcome in the new one... ? Go to BUY TICKETS on our website for online sales. Happy New Year!

You're the best, Julie.

http://mahen3d.com provide innovative solutions for all your business needs, ecommerce web site design, flash website design, website templates, accessible web site design sydney. Mahen3D.com, has been selected to receive The American Association Of Webmasters, "Gold" Award.