The digital version of IMAX is officially called ” LIEMAX “.

It’s a fraud.

Also, the conversion artifacts were unbearable. Large globs of dusty bunny shadows roaming all over the screen, were very distracting.

I think that if they have digital IMAX projectors now, they for sure have digital IMAX camera….

In fact I am projecting a U2 IMAX 3D movie right now and it was entirely filmed in digital then transferd on 72mm film. Image is not as clear as film tough. But still quite sharp.

First of all… there is a new DIGITAL IMAX “format” which is MUCH smaller than the original “large” film IMAX format. The new digital format is projected onto a screen that is about 20% the size of the original “large” film format IMAX screen. (Or about the same size a “normal” movie theater screen used to be when I was a kid.) The new “digital projection format” screen is 58 feet wide and 28 feet high. The “original” (large) film IMAX is 97 feet wide by 76 feet high.

Now, hold on to your pants… the new Star Trek movie was NOT shot in any IMAX format. Not one frame of it. Not the standard “large” film IMAX nor the new digital IMAX that is projected onto the smaller, so-called “digital” IMAX screen. (I don’t know if there even is such a thing as a new IMAX digital camera or if it is merely a “projection format” that other formats can be converted to.)

Now that we have that cleared up… as I understand it (and according to this article) the new Star Trek movie WAS shot in “normal” Cinemascope (stretchy anamorphic) and THEN converted to the new digital format IMAX projetion system.

For what it is worth… I watched a crappy CAM VID copy from Russia last night and, aside from the low res and poor audio, I felt the ending sucked. It was a good movie in its own right and definitely had some classic moments (I will still go see it in an IMAX theater), however, as a Star Trek fan, I was very disappointed with the “Hollywood” ending which absolutely destroyed the integrity and historical continuity of the Star Trek universe. Gene Roddenberry is rolling in his grave.

Regardless, both cameras, either digital or IMAX film, were very expensive to rent and insure for Mt. Everest.

I’d venture to guess that it was digitally recorded. Only based on the effect of cold on film (very heavy film), and the size and power requirements for an IMAX camera.

On the other hand, it would have been cool to have a “making of” documentary of the documentary.

Movie productions have to RENT their cameras. A 35mm Panavision camera is much cheaper per hour than an IMAX camera. IMAX film is also considerably more expensive. Giggly actors requiring re-takes can cost a veritable fortune to film. Also, the IMAX camera is HUGE and hard to move around without mechanical assistance. A “steady cam” is almost impossible.

This is why IMAX films are always made mounted on vehicles, or on film dolly’s etc. Shaking an IMAX camera around is akin to taking a Bently off road. It’s just not made for it.

Sound, the IMAX camera sounds like a chain saw when running. ALL audio must be done in post production.

As to CGI, yes, it would have to have TEN times the resolution for IMAX, and that means much longer render times. That’s a lot of money.

I think the producer’s choice to film and master in 35mm was a practical and financial choice. It’s easier to “upconvert” a 35mm film to a 70mm frame. It may look poorer, but not as poor as upconverting standard def TV to 1080p high-def. Film doesn’t have scan lines. It just looks grainier.

Here, this is better than Wikipedia (look at all pages):

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/imax1.htm

Anyone know more about digital IMAX projection?

As to the “digital source”. It doesn’t matter. The film was mastered on 35mm. It only takes a mechanical (with perhaps digital grain reduction) machine to remaster to 70mm IMAX. However, had they filmed and mastered in IMAX first and then remastered to 35mm, it would have looked much better in both formats.

Not many people REALLY know the difference between the two formats. Seriously, IMAX is the “HD” of film formats.

The question is what kind of resolution was the CGI created in. Was that CGI 35mm quality or was it IMAX quality. My guess, is it was NOT IMAX quality. I saw it on an imax screen this weekend, which was a ripoff. It did not fill the imax screen, and it was the smallest imax screen I’d ever seen. Barely any curvature to it at all. Normal screen width, with additional height. But it didn’t fill the height anyway. I noticed nothing at all special about the sound. Not once did anything sound like it was behind me. It was loud, but that’s it.