Main > Everything Else
Avatar - The Movie
RayB:
--- Quote from: Xiaou2 on January 11, 2010, 09:51:00 am ---Ray, thats impossible. Imax has 4times the resolution and your sitting
closer.
Your Imax theater must have some issues. Maybe the thing was out
of focus. Ask for your money back, and demand they fix the problem.
The Imax here, is crystal clear, and blows the reald screen next to it
away in detail and depth. (The 2 theaters here are owned by the same
company, and sit side by side)
--- End quote ---
It still has a grainy film look, cuz... its film.
And it's stretched to fit a larger screen.
If the movie wasn't rendered to Imax resolution, then guess what?
Also, Imax "HD" runs at 48 fps, which halved to display alternating frames (one for each eye) makes it 24 fps like a standard film. RealD runs at a much higher frame rate.
Last point, RealD via digital projection uses highly reflective screens (much more reflective than standard movie screens). Imax's screen is transparent to allow the sound through from speakers behind the screen (you can see this when they run the little Imax tech demo before every screening). The result was a darker picture than when I saw it in RealD.
Unless you've watched the same movie in both formats, you have no point of reference to be defending one over the other. I don't know why you feel inclined to automatically defend 17+ year old technology. (Hit up the Wiki, and read the part called "Digital Backlash")
shardian:
--- Quote from: RayB on January 11, 2010, 01:12:40 pm ---
--- Quote from: Xiaou2 on January 11, 2010, 09:51:00 am ---Ray, thats impossible. Imax has 4times the resolution and your sitting
closer.
Your Imax theater must have some issues. Maybe the thing was out
of focus. Ask for your money back, and demand they fix the problem.
The Imax here, is crystal clear, and blows the reald screen next to it
away in detail and depth. (The 2 theaters here are owned by the same
company, and sit side by side)
--- End quote ---
It still has a grainy film look, cuz... its film.
And it's stretched to fit a larger screen.
If the movie wasn't rendered to Imax resolution, then guess what?
Also, Imax "HD" runs at 48 fps, which halved to display alternating frames (one for each eye) makes it 24 fps like a standard film. RealD runs at a much higher frame rate.
Last point, RealD via digital projection uses highly reflective screens (much more reflective than standard movie screens). Imax's screen is transparent to allow the sound through from speakers behind the screen (you can see this when they run the little Imax tech demo before every screening). The result was a darker picture than when I saw it in RealD.
Unless you've watched the same movie in both formats, you have no point of reference to be defending one over the other. I don't know why you feel inclined to automatically defend 17+ year old technology. (Hit up the Wiki, and read the part called "Digital Backlash")
--- End quote ---
All of the RealD screens in my area are acoustically transparent too. If you can, go up and look closely at the screen material next time you are there. I almost guarantee it will be full of tiny holes just like the IMAX material.
Xiaou2:
--- Quote ---It still has a grainy film look, cuz... its film.
--- End quote ---
I did not see any grain at all. Everything was razor sharp.
--- Quote ---And it's stretched to fit a larger screen.
--- End quote ---
I believe this film was dumped to imax film in full resolution.
No stretching. This means, the typical 2d release has Less detail, as
its being compressed. (or details left out by dumping a digitally zoomed version)
--- Quote ---If the movie wasn't rendered to Imax resolution, then guess what?
--- End quote ---
If this was some ow budget hack job movie, then maybe so. But Id be pretty certain that a movie on this scale wouldnt cut corners like that.
--- Quote ---Also, Imax "HD" runs at 48 fps, which halved to display alternating frames (one for each eye) makes it 24 fps like a standard film. RealD runs at a much higher frame rate.
--- End quote ---
As far as Wiki states, the HD version was limited to non-existant.
Imax for almost any theater is running at 24fps. However, I believe
they use 2 cameras running at once, thus both eyes are getting
24fps.
RealD may show at higher frame rates... BUT, they simply repeat the
same frames multiple times. This is meant to try to help reduce flicker.
The movie itself is no different. No additional frames of animation frames.
--- Quote ---Unless you've watched the same movie in both formats, you have no point of reference to be defending one over the other. I don't know why you feel inclined to automatically defend 17+ year old technology. (Hit up the Wiki, and read the part called "Digital Backlash")
--- End quote ---
Im not so sure you real and fully understood all the details of the
Backlash.
1) Analog Imax film is over 4x the resolution of typical film. Im not
sure how that compares to digital... but if its not the same, it might even
be greater.
2) Digital Imax projectors, are what people are objecting too: Because
the digital projection is done with lower resolution than by what is seen
with true Imax FILM.
I guess its possible that I saw a True film Imax showing, rather than
a digital version. Ill have to check to see what they are doing over there
out of curiosity.
I will repeat, that I Have seen a RealD movie. "Coraline 3D", and while
it was good... it did not compare to the Imax that is next door to it.
Not by miles. In fact, I think the realD was darker than the Imax picture.
Anyways, It would be interesting to see whats happening here,
and how the experience is so vastly different.
RayB:
Coraline was hand-animated you meecrob! Can you imagine hand-animating something at 60 fps? It would take decades. So they did it at traditional animation frame rates. It's gonna look a bit choppy no matter what the projector is capable of.
I saw AVATAR in RealD. And AVATAR in Imax 3D. RealD looked better. 'nuff said.
shmokes:
It's worth noting (again) that clarity issues aside, the 3D effects in Coraline put Avatar's to shame.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version