IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars • Hacker News Board

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#131

Post by squeaky-clean » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 6:33 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #118

murbard2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you said: "But the "further" away you project the virtual movie screen, the higher the resolution of the VR headset" That is wrong, plain and simple. How far the movie screen appears in the VR headset has no impact whatsoever on pixelization and is purely a stereoscopic effect.

> How far the movie screen appears in the VR headset has no impact whatsoever on pixelization and is purely a stereoscopic effect We're talking about rendering pre-existing video at those distances, so it absolutely DOES cause pixelation as fewer pixels are used to render the video content than its native resolution. A lot of people calling me wrong seem to be under the odd mistaken impression that we're rendering so…

There's no such thing as "further away" with a VR headset. It's always an inch away, and the appearance of depth is just a stereoscopic trick.

> If the VR headset is 1080p and the video footage is 1080p, if you put it far away (i.e. it only takes up 50% or 25% of the VR headset's screen real-estate)

How far away it appears has nothing to do with the viewing angle, unless you also mention the virtual size of the virtual screen. A 10" screen at 1ft away will have a smaller viewing angle than a 1,000,000ft screen 500ft away.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#132

Post by Someone1234 » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 6:36 PM UTC

squeaky-clean wrote: post #131

Someone1234 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How far the movie screen appears in the VR headset has no impact whatsoever on pixelization and is purely a stereoscopic effect We're talking about rendering pre-existing video at those distances, so it absolutely DOES cause pixelation as fewer pixels are used to render the video content than its native resolution. A lot of people calling me wrong seem to be under the odd mistaken impression that we're rendering so…

There's no such thing as "further away" with a VR headset. It's always an inch away, and the appearance of depth is just a stereoscopic trick. > If the VR headset is 1080p and the video footage is 1080p, if you put it far away (i.e. it only takes up 50% or 25% of the VR headset's screen real-estate) How far away it appears has nothing to do with the viewing angle, unless you also mention the virtual size of the virtu…

> There's no such thing as "further away" with a VR headset. It's always an inch away, and the appearance of depth is just a stereoscopic trick.

Meaning objects get smaller, meaning that they take up less space on the resolution, meaning that you need higher PPI to render them at the same level of detail.

> How far away it appears has nothing to do with the viewing angle

Nobody is talking about viewing angles. I certainly never brought it up.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#133

Post by Someone1234 » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 6:38 PM UTC

murbard2 wrote: post #129

Someone1234 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How far the movie screen appears in the VR headset has no impact whatsoever on pixelization and is purely a stereoscopic effect We're talking about rendering pre-existing video at those distances, so it absolutely DOES cause pixelation as fewer pixels are used to render the video content than its native resolution. A lot of people calling me wrong seem to be under the odd mistaken impression that we're rendering so…

We're talking about rendering a more distant bigger screen, so the solid angle and the number of pixel used is constant. The point obviously isn't to give the appearance of a tv-sized image placed 100 meters away, it's to render the appearance of a kilometer-sized screen 100 meters away. And if you're wondering: "but then what's the difference"? The difference is based on a number of perceptual clues, such as - at wh…

> We're talking about rendering a more distant bigger screen, so the solid angle and the number of pixel used is constant. The point obviously isn't to give the appearance of a tv-sized image placed 100 meters away, it's to render the appearance of a kilometer-sized screen 100 meters away.

If you stretch a fixed number of pixels you reduce the detail.

If you shrink a fixed number of pixels and display that at the same or lower resolution, you reduce detail.

In either case detail is lost.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#134

Post by squeaky-clean » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 6:38 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #132

squeaky-clean wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no such thing as "further away" with a VR headset. It's always an inch away, and the appearance of depth is just a stereoscopic trick. > If the VR headset is 1080p and the video footage is 1080p, if you put it far away (i.e. it only takes up 50% or 25% of the VR headset's screen real-estate) How far away it appears has nothing to do with the viewing angle, unless you also mention the virtual size of the virtu…

> There's no such thing as "further away" with a VR headset. It's always an inch away, and the appearance of depth is just a stereoscopic trick. Meaning objects get smaller, meaning that they take up less space on the resolution, meaning that you need higher PPI to render them at the same level of detail. > How far away it appears has nothing to do with the viewing angle Nobody is talking about viewing angles. I cert…

> Meaning objects get smaller, meaning that they take up less space on the resolution

Why? It's a virtual screen, why wouldn't you scale it up as well as moving it further? The sky is really far away from me, but it's pretty huge in my field of vision.

> Nobody is talking about viewing angles. I certainly never brought it up.

Which is why we are all saying you're wrong. It's entirely dependent on viewing angle and not distance. Distance and virtual screen size are how you can determine the viewing angle.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#135

Post by kuschku » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 6:40 PM UTC

chinpokomon wrote: post #80

nogridbag wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A proper large format 15/70 IMAX theater is definitely worth it given you arrive early to get the better seats - especially for 3D films where the 3D glasses tend to make the screen look smaller. Sadly, the IMAX CEO says screen size does not matter [1] and thus the majority of them are being replaced by smaller digital screens in multiplexes. lfexaminer.com has a great list of IMAX theaters and their formats [2]. [1]…

Regarding the 3D experience, Real3D's circular polarization is significantly better than IMAX's more traditional polarization filters. The large screen format serves well for immersion, but the employed 3D tech detracts from the overall experience so much that I'd rather watch the smaller format screens.

In my city, we have a cinema that has a 18m by 8m screen and uses 4K projectors with reald 3D. It’s still an amazing quality, and faaar cheaper than IMAX. (About 3 times cheaper). And they clean the room after every showing, so the floor, although carpet, is always clean, you get reserved seats, and the popcorn is fresh.

IMAX, especially as current IMAX Digital theaters have similar screen sizes and also only 2.8K (two 2K projectors on the same screen), just isn’t really worth it anymore.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#136

Post by Animats » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 6:51 PM UTC

IMAX has bigger problems. They're diluting their brand by building "IMAX-lite" theaters with smaller screens.[1] Reviews are negative: "Underwhelming, overpriced: IMAX screens get smaller, prices stay the same"[2] Early IMAX digital projection was only "2K" (1080p, or regular HDTV), and now they have 4K projectors. This is still lower than their old 70mm film system, and not much better than what you can buy at Costco.

[1] http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm [2] http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/imax-looking-punie...

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#137

Post by drzaiusapelord » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 6:52 PM UTC

Anechoic wrote: post #121

FWIW, IMAX has apologized: https://twitter.com/IMAX/status/611953957578018816

So? I imagine many sites have been on the receiving end of this yet dont have the political capital that Ars has? How the hell is this level of bullying accepted? Trademarks aren't keys to censoring others. Its absurd that this even happened. Did they change their policy? Fire Mary Ruby? Do anything? Of course not. Empty apologies are useless.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#138

Post by drzaiusapelord » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

rbcgerard wrote: post #108

ak39 wrote: post #85

I can only imagine the precious 5 seconds of thought given to the decision to respond to Ars by the IMAX Chief Admin Officer: "Hmm, we know we have nothing to stand on here, but if we politely ask Ars to remove references to IMAX and they do, matter ends there. If Ars doesn't comply, we just lost 5 minutes of drafting this pointless letter. Nothing really to lose." Hits send. The irony? IMAX is now paying the real co…

I completely agree - but i think there is another dynamic at work here: Companies can loose their trademark if the term becomes generic, and one way to defend against that in court is to show a history of defending the mark (I'm not lawyer but that's my simplistic explanation) this is a great article explaining the phenomena around derby pie http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/05/01/399842082/wha... My bet is th…

>Companies can loose their trademark if the term becomes generic

This is ridiculous on its face. Its not like some competitor made an IMAXy Projector. This was a quote in a press article. This is a speech issue that has nothing to do with dilution, which is obvious if you bothered to read the article where Mary Ruby assaults ars staff with a weird rant about how VR cant compete with IMAX.

Frankly, the fact that trademark abusing corporations have people repeating their bullshit is scary.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#139

Post by bryang » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 7:00 PM UTC

slayed0 wrote: post #127

geon wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps it was intentional? They got an article on ARS, mentioning their brand 26 times... All publicity is good publicity, right?

Not necessarily, before this article I did not know that the range of screen sizes considered IMAX™, was so large. That's a pretty damning detail Ars slipped in there and will definitely make me think twice when going to the movies.

It's a huge problem that people that people haven't understood this. For me, it's akin to Apple back in the early days, and to some extent right now, enforcing low bit rate standards on iTunes. They're hinging on enough people not being educated or interested enough to protest. Just because it is possible to get away with this kind of, it really frustrates me because it lowers the standard for the creation and display of art. You may not notice an immediate difference, but you definitely would if they're side by side.

As for the new IMAX screens, not only is it the size of the screen, but the quality of the projector and speaker setup not to mention the actual proportion of the screen as well.

There are only a handful of "true original" IMAX screens. I'm not hating on their brand, I know they've needed to dilute to actually not go bankrupt, but it's important to note that there is a legitimate difference between "large format" (that's the term that's replacing IMAX for legalities sake and so IMAX competitors can be introduced and undercut IMAX licensing fees) and IMAX.

To be totally honest, they're in a lot of trouble as a company and they desperately need to find a way to save their product before competitors like Regals "RPX Experience" ruin them.

Re: IMAX’s absurd attempt to censor Ars

#140

Post by murbard2 » Fri, Jun 19, 2015, 7:16 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #133

murbard2 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about rendering a more distant bigger screen, so the solid angle and the number of pixel used is constant. The point obviously isn't to give the appearance of a tv-sized image placed 100 meters away, it's to render the appearance of a kilometer-sized screen 100 meters away. And if you're wondering: "but then what's the difference"? The difference is based on a number of perceptual clues, such as - at wh…

> We're talking about rendering a more distant bigger screen, so the solid angle and the number of pixel used is constant. The point obviously isn't to give the appearance of a tv-sized image placed 100 meters away, it's to render the appearance of a kilometer-sized screen 100 meters away. If you stretch a fixed number of pixels you reduce the detail. If you shrink a fixed number of pixels and display that at the sam…

I am genuinely puzzled as to what can create such a confusion. So to be very very clear:

If you were watching a 1000 pixels wide, 1 meter wide TV from one meter away, the level of details you perceive would be the same as if you were watching a 1000 pixels wide, 100 meter wide movie screen from 100 meters away.

The physical pixels on the movie screen would be larger, but you would perceive the same level of detail because they would touch the same number of rods on your retina.

If the two screens touch the same number of rods in your retina, how can you tell you're looking at a small screen upclose vs a large screen away? Several clues: parallax, vergence, and focus. VR can simulate two of those.

So if you were looking at the images produced by the VR set up for a large screen far away vs a small screen close by, they would occupy the same number of pixels on the VR display, the same! It would be just as detailed. But in one case, the two eyes would show you the images from two different angles, whereas in the other, the images would be much more similar. This is the only distance we're talking about, the perceptual distance created by the VR.

In all cases you're looking at the same number of pixels a few centimers away from your eyes, but perceptually it can be made to appear as if watching a large screen at a distance or a small screen upclose.

If you still don't understand, I can't help you beyond that point.