Replacing the World's Largest IMAX Screen 89
lukehopewell1 writes "IMAX Sydney has replaced its screen — the largest in the world — at a cost of $250,000. Weighing over 800 kilograms, painting the screen took over 12 days and 350 kilograms of paint. Lifting the massive screen and installing it took a year of planning and 31 riggers. A neat photo gallery is included so you can get an idea of just how big a job this was."
Print Page Link.. (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to view all pics at once, view it here:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/imax-replaces-worlds-largest-screen-pics_print-339331475.htm [zdnet.com.au]
Re:Soon with crappier image quality! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What...how...? (Score:5, Informative)
Most impressive (Score:5, Informative)
On page 7 of the photo gallery they quote the theater's CEO that they'll be using 1570mm film, which commentors were quick to point really means 15/70 sprockets per frame/width. The idea of film as wide as a compact car is interesting to envision, though.
Re:What...how...? (Score:5, Informative)
The whole project took a year. They probably spent most of it researching the logistics and what they wanted in a new screen. After that, that screen had to be manufactured and delivered. It says in TFA that it only took about half and hour to lift and secure it.
Re:Soon with crappier image quality! (Score:2, Informative)
How can I watch the video?
The article literally has maybe two sentences before you need to go to the next page. They can get the advertisement dollars somewhere else.
Re:Soon with crappier image quality! (Score:5, Informative)
Not true, actually. I recall hearing about an experiment that some IMAX engineers did a few years back, where they put black and white squares in a checker pattern up on the screen. They started with a 2x2 grid of squares, then went to 4x4, then 8x8, etc., but they ended up stopping well before they ever hit 4K because the screen had become gray. What that meant was that the film was not able to provide the level of contrast actually necessary to discern the shapes any longer. In other words, the level of detail it provided was below that of a 4K image.
Of course, the problem with 4K is that the details are so small, even at the scale of IMAX, that viewers would need to sit in the first five or so rows to really be able to appreciate any difference at all. And, as was noted in the video, lighting and quality concerns are still major factors with digitial projectors, more so than the issues with resolution.
Analog has some advantages, to be sure, but they mostly are in the fact that it can provide good enough resolution without other compromises. Digital resolutions surpassed IMAX several years ago, but digital projectors still have enough drawbacks that analog continues to have a place in some of these theaters, though time is running out for that.
Re:Soon with crappier image quality! (Score:4, Informative)
You don't even need to OPEN the article. The video is in the damn summary