# IMAX is 220 megapix, Canon's max STILLS are 22 megapix.



## poias (Aug 30, 2012)

4K is 8 megapix. 8K is a mere 30 megapix. But IMAX is 10x 8K. Anyone thinks we are still in digital infancy in terms of resolution? DR-wise it ain't even pretty. Film kills digital. Canon being the worst of all.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 30, 2012)

poias said:


> 4K is 8 megapix. 8K is a mere 30 megapix. But IMAX is 10x 8K. Anyone thinks we are still in digital infancy in terms of resolution? DR-wise it ain't even pretty. Film kills digital. Canon being the worst of all.


Imax Digital uses two 2K projectors, but they are working on a 4K system. All the theatres are heading that way.
Why not read up before posting inaccurate information.?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imax


----------



## poias (Aug 30, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > 4K is 8 megapix. 8K is a mere 30 megapix. But IMAX is 10x 8K. Anyone thinks we are still in digital infancy in terms of resolution? DR-wise it ain't even pretty. Film kills digital. Canon being the worst of all.
> ...



Real IMAX, not lieMax that is going on. The IMAX sensor size is 8x the super35, considering it is film and has off the charts DR, the resolution+DR is unmatched by any digital. Of course, Canon's decade old sensor is probably the least competitive.


----------



## Ewinter (Aug 30, 2012)

poias said:


> Film kills digital. Canon being the worst of all.


And giant rocks thrown from a massive catapult kill people in body armor a lot better than bullets do. But it's horses for courses. If film is so much better, shoot film. If medium format is better, shoot medium format.
People buy canon DSLRS because that's what works for them. I don't want 3 billion gigasuperterapixels; 23 megapickles is more than enough at this point in time. And as for dynamic range, what's the average display actually showing? I'd imagine that most end user screens don't have a gamut wide enough to display standard RAW. I could be wrong there, but I don't see the need for megapickle wars. 
Or posts flaming canon, on a canon website about how canon operates.
my 2 cents


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 30, 2012)

poias said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...


Real IMAX???
With the scratchy film and all?
I like IMAX, but they often upsize movies taken with 35mm film, and conventional video cameras, the quality is not all that great.
They are going to digital to improve the quality. Good riddence to scratchy flickering film.


----------



## poias (Aug 30, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Are you dense? I said real IMAX, as in large format IMAX such as 1570, 1070 etc. Not the liemax near your mall. True large format video with 8x resolution than your typical super35.

Learn something before pretending to know http://www.lfexaminer.com/formats.htm


----------



## cliffwang (Aug 31, 2012)

Can I buy this 80K camcorder for 3K? Canon can put it 120MP 35mm sensor on a camera, but the cost may be 100K+. 220MP is just not for normal people.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 31, 2012)

poias said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...


I am not dense, and I know what the original Imax film format was. They still shoot it, but the prints get scratchy over time, and its very expensive to make new prints. They also upsize smaller formats and print them on imax film, as well as digital video.
Your theory about it having megapixels, however is just that, a theory. The size of the film has nothing to do with MP. 
However, its going going and soon gone. They get better images with the new 4K system, and no scratchy old prints.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Aug 31, 2012)

IMAX's frame size is 69.6 × 48.5 mm, so it's hardly surprising that it should be higher resolution than the 24 x 36 mm of Canon's 22 megapickle camera. And, last I heard, just the support rig for an IMAX camera costs significantly more than any stills camera makes, and you can't exactly go buy an IMAX camera at B&H.

And, you know what? A Formula One racer absolutely smokes anything you can buy at the local auto mall -- even the upscale ones that sells Porsches, BMWs, and Ferraris.

So...your point is...what, exactly? You want to wave your hindquarters in the air so everybody will notice how smelly they are? Because that's about all you're doing....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Kahuna (Aug 31, 2012)

So if the rumored Canon 3D is anything less than 220 MP ..I'm going to Nikon


----------



## Policar (Aug 31, 2012)

*Where did you read this nonsense?*

Also: when was the last time you shot film side-by-side with digital?

IMAX is close to 6x7 film, which is perceptually about the same as the 5D Mark III--at best. Scans are done at that resolution to avoid aliasing. And film has more detail before extinction than digital in this case (due to the larger sensor), but the mtf falls off to <50% or so pretty fast whereas digital stays sharp to extinction. I've seen 6x7 prints (Velvia) side by side with 5D Mark II prints....it's close. Really close. The area under the mtf curves, assuming excellent lenses, is similar with high end full frame and IMAX--and that's the closest measure we have for perceptual sharpness.

Color negative film has more highlight detail but less shadow detail. At best we're talking 14 stops total....cameras are now 14 bit and getting close, they just clip highlights faster for much cleaner shadows (and thus much higher perceived resolution--6x7 is way grainier than FF digital!).

And who shoots IMAX? Like no one. Most people who are shooting on motion picture film (which is still way out of the price range of the average amateur) shoot 35mm, and the Alexa beats 35mm in every possible category except maybe it has about .5 stops less highlight detail.

Film is pretty terrible, technically. That you need to invoke IMAX, a little-used format, testifies to this. (Though 6x7, a very common format, has virtually the same frame size, which confuses me. And 4x5 actually does beat most digital, excepting the 80MP backs maybe. 8x10 trumps everything!).

That said, it still looks really, really great. But of all the arguments to support it, this is one of the most ridiculous I've read, sorry.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 4, 2012)

Film is like an camp fire, A old Vinyl LP, or candle light in a dark room. Its natural, analog, and looks great to us humans, but isn't as capable as digital.

Digital is like a harsh florescent light, A perfectly clean sounding CD, and the sterile clean room in which they are produced. Its clean and nice to work with, but lacks that humanity that film has.


----------



## preppyak (Sep 4, 2012)

poias said:


> Film kills digital. Canon being the worst of all.





poias said:


> Of course, Canon's decade old sensor is probably the least competitive.





poias said:


> Are you dense?
> Learn something before pretending to know http://www.lfexaminer.com/formats.htm



You must have a lot of fun trolling the Canon forums. Seeing as your post history shows that is all you are here to do: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=20859


----------



## distant.star (Sep 4, 2012)

.


poias said:


> 4K is 8 megapix. 8K is a mere 30 megapix. But IMAX is 10x 8K. Anyone thinks we are still in digital infancy in terms of resolution? DR-wise it ain't even pretty. Film kills digital. Canon being the worst of all.



Wow! Thanks for telling me. 

Where can I buy one? I want to start getting those great pictures as soon as I can!


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 4, 2012)

I sure hope no one is expecting 200+ MP in a 35mm format sensor... heck medium format may be too small... sensors can always improve, DR can be steadily increased, but sensor density, for this size format and quality, is starting to get to max out otherwise as we see with the 24MP APS-C sensors, they just get crappy quickly.


----------

