Imax Dmr? - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-15-2008, 05:59 PM
high_rollin's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 98
Default Imax Dmr?

I was just wondering... DNR (digital noise reduction) seems to be universally opposed on forums such as this one when it comes to transferring movies to video.

So what's the difference between DNR and IMAX DMR? I read that when they blow up 35 mm prints for IMAX, they use a digital process to reduce grain. So isn't this the same as DNR?

Furthermore, when they make a video transfer of a movie that's had the IMAX DMR process, such as Harry Potter... do they use the IMAX master for the transfer, or the original 35mm master? Because I would think the IMAX master would probably provide a more stable, noise-free source. I thought that might be why the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Blu-Ray has such good picture quality.
I'm not sure if they would do that or not though.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-15-2008, 06:54 PM
posters5's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,103
Default

it depends.

some movies are projected via 35mm just like in a regular theatre, so the only difference is a bigger screen. nothing is done to the film.

some movies are actually re-formatted to take advantage of an imax screen's surface area. for example, some 2.35:1 movies are cropped at the sides, or 2.35:1 movies shot with super 35 get more of their tops and bottoms exposed.

from what you've posted, it sounds like "imax dmr" is just another form of DNR, which makes it just as unpalatable as any other scrubbing.

remember, film is supposed to have film grain.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-15-2008, 07:02 PM
Josh Z's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,925
Default

The IMAX DRM process basically amounts to scanning 35mm films to a digital master, upconverting them to higher resolution, and then outputing them onto the larger IMAX film stock.

I'll be honest, I haven't been terribly impressed by most of the 35mm films I've seen run through the DRM process. The 35mm portions of The Dark Knight were DNRed and Edge Enhanced to hell, and looked like absolute garbage. Coupled with the fact that the local IMAX screen really isn't much larger than the nearby stadium seating theater, I'd rather watch a quality 35mm presentation than another DRM print.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of this site, its owners or employees.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-15-2008, 09:32 PM
high_rollin's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
The 35mm portions of The Dark Knight were DNRed and Edge Enhanced to hell, and looked like absolute garbage.

Really? I thought it looked just fine. Paled in comparison to the 70mm footage, of course, but looked just fine by 35mm standards IMO. I certainly didn't notice any Edge Enhancement.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-16-2008, 09:35 AM
Josh Z's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by high_rollin View Post
Really? I thought it looked just fine. Paled in comparison to the 70mm footage, of course, but looked just fine by 35mm standards IMO. I certainly didn't notice any Edge Enhancement.
How far were you from the screen? My theater was packed and I got shoved into the fourth row. The edge halos were really thick and disgusting.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of this site, its owners or employees.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-16-2008, 02:04 PM
posters5's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,103
Default

you should've asked for a refund, josh. anywhere forward of the middle seats will give you severe neck strain.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-16-2008, 02:34 PM
cheez avenger's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13,694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
How far were you from the screen? My theater was packed and I got shoved into the fourth row. The edge halos were really thick and disgusting.


Maybe it was a crappy theater/equipment?


I saw it twice on Imax, 4th row, and the second one was about 12-13th row (center).
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-16-2008, 05:24 PM
Josh Z's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheez avenger View Post
Maybe it was a crappy theater/equipment?
IMAX is projected on film. Film projection cannot add edge enhancement and DNR by fault of a crappy theater or equipment. Those things were added during the DRM upconversion process, which is done digitally.

The portions of Dark Knight shot on IMAX film looked great, but the upconverted 35mm footage looked awful. I felt similarly about Batman Begins in IMAX (except that one was all 35mm).
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of this site, its owners or employees.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-13-2011, 12:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 656
Default

I've been doing a bit of research into the DMR process and I agree with Josh on this one. This process basically does a DNR and EE pass over the 35mm film to get it to look grainless and sharp like IMAX film, but in the end I think it looks rather poor. The Dark Knight's IMAX segments looked spectacular, but the rest looked awful.

Avatar on IMAX was good primarily because it was shot digitally so there isn't any grain to try and wipe away.

I've also seen Tron Legacy on IMAX and while the 35mm segments are getting better they are still rather dim and flat in my opinion.

With Ghost Protocol and Dark Knight Rises coming out with IMAX scenes in them (especially Batman) I really want to see those sequences in IMAX, but I am worried about how the rest of the film looks... so I am conflicted. I think I may see these movies in a normal theater first and if I really like them I'll see them again in IMAX.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-13-2011, 02:52 PM
Josh Z's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,925
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by singhcr View Post
I've also seen Tron Legacy on IMAX and while the 35mm segments are getting better they are still rather dim and flat in my opinion.
Tron Legacy was shot entirely in 2k digital, FYI. The aspect ratio opens up to 16:9 for some scenes, but none of the movie was shot on 35mm or IMAX film stock.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of this site, its owners or employees.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
IMAX & DTS Announce New IMAX Enhanced Certification & Licensing Program scohen Home Theater Gear 0 09-04-2018 04:57 PM
Digital IMAX vs 70mm film IMAX (questions after watching Sully in IMAX) pedram Film Forum 10 12-22-2016 12:54 AM
Panasonic DMR-BW500i 500GB Blu-Ray Disc Recorder TheDaddy High Definition Smackdown 44 06-12-2008 09:31 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off