2

These days everything is digital. I came to know that, real 70MM IMAX i.e (not LieIMAX) are shown using film stock instead of digital once. What's keeping them from producing the format in digital equivalent of 70mm (not LieIMAX). Will the digitalization degrade the shots taken in IMAX technology?

I'm wondering they are still using film stock. I'm newbie to this and may not be aware of many things.

  • I am not sureof the answer, since I am not an expert, but look at this link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#Digital_IMAX – mattiav27 Jul 11 '15 at 9:32
  • 2
    What is LieIMAX? – his Jul 11 '15 at 9:39
  • Related (if not even duplicate): movies.stackexchange.com/q/34435/49. – Napoleon Wilson Jul 11 '15 at 10:10
  • This question is specific and not a duplicate. – pinkpanther Jul 11 '15 at 17:34
  • @his LieMAX is the term used for IMAX screens that are really not much bigger than standard movie theater screens, while seating patrons closer to the screen to make it seem larger without regard to focal point. Often times theaters advertise using IMAX digital projection systems, but don't have actual IMAX theaters. – MattD Jul 12 '15 at 2:36
1

I read David Breashears book High Exposure: An Enduring Passion for Everest and Unforgiving Places which talks quite a bit about the making of Everest (1998) and his path to learning to embrace and ultimately love the IMAX camera. Each reel of blank film stock which goes into the camera is only 60 seconds (or was it 180?) long. That kind of abbreviated length forces the camera man to really concentrate on the subject.

Given the major expense of the camera and the proportion of the camera devoted to handling that huge film, besides tradition and its long proven technology, replacing it with a digital version of the camera would deter filmmakers who have already invested in the equipment (which can no longer be used) and all the downstream work flow services and equipment would be a very hard choice to make.

  • 1
    When I talked to someone shooting a parade in IMax, I was told that the reel was IIRC 1000 feet, which translates into about 3 minutes. I found that interesting because that duration seems pretty consistent among many film formats (a 25' roll of "8mm" is two sides of two minutes each; Super 8 50' is 3:20; 100' of 16mm is 2.7 minutes, etc.) – supercat Jun 28 '16 at 18:38
0

The translation of anything (film stock, analog) involves loss. The loss may be negligible or imperceptible to most or even all people, but it is still there. However digital has its advantages, such as no quality loss from transmission distance or repeated use, therefore frequently seeming to be better. But digital is not the same as the original.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .