The Avatar Thread

[Garp]

Originally Posted by Belmit

A couple of times I swear I could have just reached out and grabbed Michelle Rodriguez's chest.

I swear there were people in my theater that were trying.

[divine]

Originally Posted by TinkerBell

I went to see this Tuesday night and it is AMAZING! I loved it, the 3 hours just flew by

Paul and I are going to see this at the IMAX in February so will be interesting to see how good the IMAX is

I wouldn't use it as a judge of IMAX in general, as afaik it isn't filmed in IMAX, it's just upscaled normal film, so it will be bigger but not necessarily with the extra quality you would usually associate with IMAX.

Also I think IMAX 3D uses linear polarisation rather than circular, so tilting your head ruins the 3D, unlike the RealD system in most cinemas.

[Will]

Because of the way IMAX is set up there's little need to tilt your head though isn't there? I've been to IMAX a few times and always highly impressed with it I must say as you don't really need to move your head as the picture is "right there" in your face. Wasn't it filmed in high definition or equivalent so that it could be upscaled to IMAX more emphatically?

[divine]

Well you don't need to tilt your head in any cinema but if you went with a partner say and wanted to rest your head on their shoulder during the film, RealD would work, IMAX3D would be a big heap of fail

[Will]

Ah ok. Is that across all IMAX? Or just certain IMAXes?

[divine]

All IMAX 3D will use linear polarisation afaik, so you have to be lined up properly in respect of the polarisation else the picture will get dimmer and dimmer the further out of alignment you get.

Also, to address the other point about resolution, the point of IMAX was to vastly improve visual quality through much bigger film (IMAX is 69.6 mm × 48.5 mm according to wiki, regular 35mm is 21.95 mm x 18.6 mm). Avatar afaik, only used regular 35mm film so where traditionally IMAX would make a big difference (think the difference between SD and 1080p on a big screen at home), with Avatar you won't get that, the screen will be bigger but the source image is the same just being projected bigger. Digital IMAX isn't really the same and projects with a pair of 2K projectors rather than a single 2K set up and they've got a bit of stick for not making it easy to identify Digital IMAX cinemas as they don't provide a 'true' IMAX experience.

Regardless Avatar will still look awesome but don't take it as an example of the pinnacle of what IMAX can do, as a proper IMAX filmed movie will look even better.

[Garp]

Originally Posted by divine

Avatar afaik, only used regular 35mm film so where traditionally IMAX would make a big difference (think the difference between SD and 1080p on a big screen at home), with Avatar you won't get that, the screen will be bigger but the source image is the same just being projected bigger. Digital IMAX isn't really the same and projects with a pair of 2K projectors rather than a single 2K set up and they've got a bit of stick for not making it easy to identify Digital IMAX cinemas as they don't provide a 'true' IMAX experience.

Filming was done on HD cameras, special stereoscopic mounted versions of these:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/ext/cine.../hdcf950.shtml

I'm not sure whether that's 2K or 4K like Red cameras.

[divine]

Originally Posted by Garp

Filming was done on HD cameras, special stereoscopic mounted versions of these:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/ext/cine.../hdcf950.shtml

I'm not sure whether that's 2K or 4K like Red cameras.

'HD' means little in these terms.

35mm film stock if I am not mistaken is the same size as 35mm photographic stock and it's generally regarded you need a 12MP digital image or so to get approx. the same resolution power as film provides. 'Full HD' is 2MP. A 4K camera (meaning ~4000 horizontal pixels) is about 9MP and so is almost as good as 35mm film. That camera looks to be 2K though from the brochure, so not even really as good as a 35mm film can be.

IMAX film is much much much bigger than 35mm film is and has a far greater resolving ability, so can produce much more detail in images. Even a 4K camera (which is as good you get atm really, even 2K projection only became common in 2005/2006) comes nowhere near IMAX quality.

As I said, it won't look bad, it just won't look as good as a proper IMAX film so if it is your first IMAX experience, that isn't as good as it can be.

[LeperousDust]

I wasn't really all that impressed with the 3d at all, i think it was 3d for the sake of, and not really worth the money spent on it. I'd rather watch it in 2d and at that rate i didn't think the actual plot was all that to write home about either. Although weeks later (now) and seeing Avatar related adverts still, looking back i did enjoy the film and i guess thats what its all about on reflection. But 3d did NOT win me over at all

Out of interest then divine; where should i go close to Edinburgh to see decent IMAX glasgow science centre i can see has a screen, is that "real"? And what should i see that does it justice?

[divine]

I think the only UK based Digital IMAX are in London (Greenwich and Wimbledon) but I can't find much since they opened in 2008 so there could be more. If it opened before the end of 2008 it's probably a proper one unless it has since been converted.

As for films, there is a list on Wikipedia but it includes 'digitally remastered' versions, which is what Avatar is, even though that effectively means 'upscaled'.