URSA Cine 24K IMAX

I saw this post on Instagram today and couldn’t help but think that the next leap forward for digital sensors is 15-Perf 70mm Size! And, who is perfectly poised to deliver such a sensor? Blackmagic Design!

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DCQFYSbv ... pmbmN1N2E1

It’s going to be a large format sensor with immense resolution. But I’m betting it would look gorgeous! I’m thinking 24K resolution, but that’s a wild guess.

Who else would love to see Blackmagic achieve this feat?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That would be an immersive camera, let’s say Immersive IMAX with dual 12288x9216 sensors for a total sensor coverage of 24K as you suggested, 24576x9216 photosites. At a sensor pitch of 2.9 microns, the active sensor width would be about 71.2704mm x 26.7264mm. Each eye of the camera would be 35.6352mm x 26.7264mm.

That digital resolution may be slightly superior to the use of real 65mm film which I read is the equivalent of 12000 lines of resolution. I’m no expert on anything related to IMAX.

Since BMD has already announced a Cine 17K camera, 24K may be within their reach in another year. Now the market for this camera will be very niche so I think BMD won’t take it on without a partnership with IMAX and Panavision.

How many minutes with the 8TB module record the stereoscopic media? After many decades are we returning to the glorious days of filmmaking when a reel of 16mm film lasted 11 minutes?

The usual figure given for IMAX film -- 65mm film stock running horizontally through the camera -- is 18K, or 12000 horizontal lines -- in theory. But no projected print will preserve that much. And there are only a handful of theaters, world-wide, which can even screen at that [theoretical] resolution.

And to what end, going any further? Visual acuity is limited and the distance from the screen, to preserve anything like full resolution. is going to be very narrow....

The ARRI Alexa 65 by comparison uses fat photosites, 8.25 microns, but is less than half the resolution. The Alexa 65 doesn’t come anywhere near the traditional aspect ratio, so not sure how that would compete against an Immersive 24K that can match the aspect ratio of 65mm film.

If BMD was encouraged by IMAX and had active support from Panavision, one could think that they had a shot at a true marquee camera shooting 3D in a single file camera capture and deliverable. Sure they might only make a hundred of these but it would definitely put Blackmagic on the map! Depending upon how the camera is marketed, it might increase the numbers tenfold or more.

Well, Rick I’m not saying immersive 3D, but instead the IMAX 15-Perf 70mm size. The Alexa 65 and UCine17K 65 replicate 5-perf 65mm film. So essentially take the 65mm sensor, rotate 90° and multiply it 3X to get that 15-perf 70mm size.

Going off the UC17K that would be 71.7mm X 50.808mm. Resolution wise: 24,120 pixels X 17,520 pixels. Thus how I came to 24K.

This is likely going to be similar to shooting 15-Perf IMAX film. So conservative shooting ratios, but because of will be digital you can probably shoot longer takes.

Let’s assume it comes with the 16TB Media Module standard. At 3:1 BRAW we’re maybe talking about 1hr 44min for 16TB because it’s roughly double the size of the 12K sensor and resolution, and thus what you get for 8TB of 12K BRAW 3:1 would be double the size and thus how I guess 16TB gets that same amount of footage.

I would hope Blackmagic works closely with IMAX and Panavision on the development of the camera.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As J.B. has pointed out many times, you don't buy BMD 12K+ cameras for their resolution (and they don't actually deliver it). Has anyone actually measured BMD's "best" and compared it against the Alexa 65?

In any case, I've never understood why these numbers are so exiting. Most hard-core cineastes had their "formative" cinematic experiences in a film society basement running a distressed 16mm library print. Martin Scorsese had his on a 13" B&W TV set.

… Has anyone actually measured BMD's "best" and compared it against the Alexa 65? ...

No disagreement with your post but hard to compare BMD’s best against the Alexa 65 since BMD hasn’t given us their best yet.

As J.B. has pointed out many times, you don't buy BMD 12K+ cameras for their resolution (and they don't actually deliver it). Has anyone actually measured BMD's "best" and compared it against the Alexa 65?

In any case, I've never understood why these numbers are so exiting. Most hard-core cineastes had their "formative" cinematic experiences in a film society basement running a distressed 16mm library print. Martin Scorsese had his on a 13" B&W TV set.

I’m simply excited by the race to match the best film has had to offer, which is 15-Perf IMAX. That is what we’ve been striving for since we first went to digital. The first hurdle was Super 35, the next was VistaVision, and the latest has been 65mm.

I’d be very interested to see comparisons between the URSA 17K 65 and Alexa 65. Maybe soon ARRI will release a 65 Mark 2 based off the Alexa 35 sensor and that can be compared.

Nonetheless, in photography we all strived to go medium format and large format. So the same is true for cinema.

I personally believe that Blackmagic is perfectly poised to deliver this goal of the first digital 15-perf 70mm IMAX. And, that truly excites me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ARRI ANNOUNCES NEW 65!!!

https://www.cined.com/arri-alexa-265-an ... mm-camera/

Called it. I knew that Arri was working on a new 65mm or new LF and would release one soon. I had spoken with an Arri rep and asked about which would be first. He wasn't sure, but said they are working on them. Looks like the UCine17K has competition.

But I think it’s still the same sensor pitch, dimensions, and resolution as the Alexa 65. I thought the changes referred to a smaller and lighter box.

FDTimes:

ARRI ALEXA 265 is lighter and smaller than predecessors ALEXA 65 and 765. The 265 camera has a 65mm format sensor measuring a familiar 54.12 x 25.58 mm (59.86 mm Ø diagonal. 6560 x 3100 photosites.) The camera body is about the same size as an ALEXA 35--slightly wider to accommodate the bigger sensor, so most ALEA 35 accessories fit. Data wrangling is streamlined.

But I think it’s still the same sensor pitch, dimensions, and resolution as the Alexa 65. I thought the changes referred to a smaller and lighter box.

FDTimes:

ARRI ALEXA 265 is lighter and smaller than predecessors ALEXA 65 and 765. The 265 camera has a 65mm format sensor measuring a familiar 54.12 x 25.58 mm (59.86 mm Ø diagonal. 6560 x 3100 photosites.) The camera body is about the same size as an ALEXA 35--slightly wider to accommodate the bigger sensor, so most ALEA 35 accessories fit. Data wrangling is streamlined.

Yes, same sensor size, resolution, and pixel pitch. But it is a new sensor. They did improve dynamic range and sensitivity for higher ISOs. So it's ALEV3 Revision B sensor instead of the ALEV4 in the 35.

This is fascinating. I'd have guessed 8K for 65 with the ALEV4 sensor. Since 4.6K to LF is 6.5K roughly, and thus 65 would then be 8K roughly.

I'll be curious to see comparisons between URSA Cine 17K 65 and Alexa 265.

... I'd have guessed 8K for 65 with the ALEV4 sensor. Since 4.6K to LF is 6.5K roughly, and thus 65 would then be 8K roughly.

I'll be curious to see comparisons between URSA Cine 17K 65 and Alexa 265.

Thanks for the additional information. As you know the 265 sensor has a diagonal under 60mm and the Cine 17K has more than four times the number of photosites with an aspect ratio suited to IMAX, but its sensor diagonal is about 55mm. When the ARRI 265 shoots 4.5K 4448x3096 1.44:1, it supports the traditional IMAX aspect ratio, but then the active sensor is only a diagonal of 44.71mm, so any lens designed for Vistavision will work such as the 46.3 image circle on my modest SLR Magic primes.

In any comparison between the Cine 17K and the ARRI 265, ARRI likely comes out on top using photosites that are about 8.25 microns so several stops more light gathering capability with a traditional CFA supports the modest claim of 15 stops dynamic range compared to the BMD sensor, but BMD does use unfiltered light for half the photosites to boost their brightness when the image processor defines a pixel to a claimed 16 stops but we don’t yet have a production Cine 17K.

A comparison of the two cameras in the future, by someone who shoots for IMAX, would be ideal. But not sure if James Cameron would care to take the time since he earns more during a coffee break than I do in a year.

Edit
Edited to provide more information re aspect ratio and dynamic range.

After reading the FD Times article, something jumped out. My prediction of 100 units of an IMAX camera was good as that’s the number of ARRI 265 cameras that are planned to be provided through the rental stream; there will be no general public purchases.

So that is an opening for BMD to find their own market to which they would sell cameras for ownership by production companies. The investment ARRI has made in the 265 is significant but their marketing has intentionally decided to limit the supply so the demand-side will be high ergo high rental fees without any viable competitor. When BMD enters the market, they could well be a serious competitor by selling direct to customers. It only takes one James Cameron wannabe to get the ball rolling with the Cine 17K this year (?) and perhaps add an Immersive 24K camera in the future.

Yeah, BMD is perfectly poised with the URSA Cine 17K being $30K to buy. That opens the door for a lot more people. The challenge is the lenses as you need lenses that cover 65mm sensor size.

No matter what True IMAX remains 15-Perf 70mm, which VistaVision 35mm will never come close to. So, I'm sorry 1.44:1 crop on the Alexa 265 will not satisfy someone like Christopher Nolan. It needs to be True IMAX in size, and that's 70mm x 48.5mm.

So the Alexa IMAX would be roughly 9,300px X 6,560px if one was to rotate the 65 sensor and stitch it 3X to get to that True IMAX size. That's very rough math and not precise.

From what I've read the Alexa 35 sensor cannot be stitched in the same way as their old sensors. So that should mean that we're farther out from seeing Alexa LF and Alexa 65 using that same sensor.

Either way, I bet if Blackmagic did achieve the True IMAX sensor size at 24K resolution that it would be $75K for that camera. This puts it in league with those who can afford an Alexa 35. That's a massive savings compared to the $500K for a True IMAX Film Camera.

I’m not making these decisions, but I think $75,000 might be too low given you’re competing with only 100 rental units in the current market. Mind you when DaVinci Resolve came with a $100,000 machine and probably a very small market, it didn’t dissuade Grant Petty from buying it and eventually almost giving it away for free. Grant rolled the dice on that but it’s one step on the path to new markets. So only Grant knows the numbers that might be worth this gamble, price it too low and you get a bigger market but each sale may be a loss. Price it too high and fewer sales won’t recover all your costs either. How does Grant manage to sleep at night?

A comparison of the UC17K versus the proposed IMAX BMD sensor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Guys, the future of cinema, if it has one, which is doubtful, is somebody's living room. There is no commercial demand for enormous sensors to end up on enormous screens, any more than Hollywood filmmakers are fighting over IMAX cameras today (or ever).

For that matter, how long did VistaVision last? I'll answer that: apart from a few outliers many years later, less than 10 years in mainstream Hollywood production.

The studios indulge Christopher Nolan because he doesn't go over budget and his stuff makes money in the mass market, world-wide. Very few filmmakers have that kind of clout, including the best working American directors today.

And if you actually counted the lines of Alexa 65 and compared the result to IMAX film prints, you might be surprised. Meanwhile, the typical 35mm release print is doing well if it resolves 700 in a typical theater. And you want how many more? For what, exactly?

Guys, the future of cinema, if it has one, which is doubtful, is somebody's living room. There is no commercial demand for enormous sensors to end up on enormous screens, any more than Hollywood filmmakers are fighting over IMAX cameras today (or ever).

For that matter, how long did VistaVision last? I'll answer that: apart from a few outliers many years later, less than 10 years in mainstream Hollywood production.

The studios indulge Christopher Nolan because he doesn't go over budget and his stuff makes money in the mass market, world-wide. Very few filmmakers have that kind of clout, including the best working American directors today.

And if you actually counted the lines of Alexa 65 and compared the result to IMAX film prints, you might be surprised. Meanwhile, the typical 35mm release print is doing well if it resolves 700 in a typical theater. And you want how many more? For what, exactly?

Despite the prevalence of full frame, many photographers still favor medium format photography. The primary objective of IMAX size is to capture the exceptional detail and richness of IMAX Film, which is equivalent to that of 7x6 medium format film. While digital sensors offer a similar level of richness, larger sensor sizes also enable the use of larger lenses, providing an impressive field of view and depth of field. Consequently, achieving a T1.4 aperture is unnecessary, as a medium format sensor and lens can provide equivalent separation at T2.8.

While the theatrical experience may face challenges, it remains an unparalleled experience for certain films. The recent sold-out theaters for the Interstellar re-release demonstrate the enduring appeal of this format. The communal aspect of the theater experience contributes to its popularity.

Therefore, I firmly believe that we can develop an exceptional digital sensor capable of reaching the size of 70mm IMAX. This advancement would enable us to produce the magnificent imagery that we have come to expect.

"Magnificent imagery" does not depend on resolution or an enormous screen. In 120+ years of cinema, no large format has gained much of a foothold in exhibition. And the relationship of resolution and spectacle to sustained dramatic illusion has yet to be demonstrated.

If Hollywood could reliably sell-out showings with IMAX, the industry would have converted to the format years ago.

… the relationship of resolution and spectacle to sustained dramatic illusion has yet to be demonstrated.

If Hollywood could reliably sell-out showings with IMAX, the industry would have converted to the format years ago.

Tim’s proposal is probably a higher resolution than any existing IMAX cameras and projectors. How that might relate to dramatic illusion is unknown because it hasn’t happened to this degree. And as you know there’s so much more than resolution at work in creating the IMAX experience.

Hollywood isn’t interested in driving the industry to “convert” to IMAX. IMAX is just another option particularly when spectacle might be appropriate such as the depiction of the invasion of Normandy or the battles at the Roman Coliseum.