I think the even bigger issue is the size of the cameras and how hard they are to move. Nolan has mention this too. I can't remember how much filming time you get out of an IMAX mag... Anyway size and noise is why folks are looking to the RED (that's how they write it all in caps) 5k rez camera as a possible solution.

And as for the biggest piece of shit ever made, go watch BLOODRAYNE and get back to us.

As opposed to say, the gang meetings with a lotta people around a desk - in other words, horizontal compositions/imagery. It's actually really appropriate and not jarring at all.

The regular dvd version will just be in scope though like the non-IMAX. The Blu-ray will ape the IMAX by changing format (although the taller format isn't quite IMAX's 1.66 to 1, it's a little more squat. Looked fine on the Batman Begins preview though).

Right. Enough posting. And avoiding work...

I can see that your friend would choose 35mm but I also think (this is my personal opinion now) that a digital camera shooting 2k IS analogous to the REALITY of 35mm under realistic conditions. By which I mean - for features pretty much everything goes through a digital IP these days, and both those and visual effects are generally done at 2k, not higher. So the quality of the finished film people see will be 2k. Although colour fidelity will be higher if captured on film and this will be carried through more than if they started in digital. THEN, there's further loss of resolution when the thing gets to the vast majority of cinemas, which are not digital. I'm not even talking wear. Just the act of running films loose in the gate because they're threaded onto a single reel and you lose even more effective resolution through the lack of focus. So I'd argue that realistically, 2k digital end-to-end stomps all over traditional for rez, and 4-5k is analogous to 65mm/70mm. As for RED, apparently colour definition is better than other digital formats at the top end and is nowhere near the dreaded digital blow-out of others. So it's improving, but I still think it'll be a while before it equals film.

I can see why your friend likes 35mm but he would get to see it under the best end conditions, which almost no-one does. By the way I'm not saying things should be dumbed down. I love stuff shot on film and projected digitally.

Your last couple of posts were confusing. That IMAX 'technique' that is glorified uprezzing IS bullshit! It's the same as the garbage about uprezzed DVDs being as good as HD media, it's just not the same as IMAX resolution, it's interpolated up. The only difference is the lack of incompetent projectionists. And paying double for said competence. I have an IMAX cinema 5 minutes down the road from me. They play regular 35mm blown up to IMAX size at night. The uprezzing may be a bit better, but it's NOT the same as it actually being IMAX rez or even proper 70mm.

Don't bother with a retort. Actually you probably won't even bother to read this post since you apparently have the attention span of that karate kid from Smokin Aces.

Ritalin boner.

Incidentally my mate with the REDs spends most of his time on set, so he rarely sees his work for 35mm properly graded until it hits cinemas.

Yeah RED will probably take a few years, but I hope they succeed because the price for small filmmakers is great, the things look to be built like tanks and they seem to be so aggressive it'll keep the big boys honest. I agree with what you say about not being true 4k quality - it's probably analogous to the cheapo still digital camera guys who offer rez as a cheap alternative to decent low-noise/quality colour sensitinity & optics, which cancels itself out as far as I'm concerned. Having said that, considering the little 3k RED prosumer thing is only going to be 3 grand, that one looks mighty appealing for a bit of fun...

And looking back I think my post WAS a bit confusing. And geeky as fuck.

I don't disagree with the idea of making those fuckers super-detailed, but if you're gonna do that, move the camera the fuck out and slow the cuts when the action is compli-ma-cated (as Homer would say). Or if you're gonna go tight with detailed stuff simplify the damn silhouettes. Did no-one learn anything from Joe Johnston and Ralph McQuarrie's genius on Star Wars? Ya can't have it both ways. The first TF film proved that.

I listened to the commentary on TF for the exact reason of hearing Bay justify himself or admit he fucked up at the end. He did talk about how hard it is (we all know that), but then when we got to the end battle... nuthin'. Hmmm. Considering that his only STRENGTH is lighting and framing... what happened?!!

And what was with the Circuit City (or whatever the fuck they called it) thing for that matter? Yeah generally LA or New York are the generic movie cities, but the way Bay shot it (familiar street signs and all) it didn't just look like 'some city', it looked like L.A.! Even the bits shot on the backlot!

I recognised it and I'm not even FROM America!!