Adam Savage looks at an imax scannerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkAWTmpTBc1 of 1 scanner, built on granite because metal would flex too much. It's only "8k" which is kind of weird. the guy says that it's 8,000 pixels on the horizontal which would be 8k, though 8k is like 7600 pixels on the long end and it's a different aspect ratio. I wonder if it's a projector thing, because there are 8k scans of 2001, lawrence of arabia and my fair lady, but this is between like 8k and 16k due to the aspect ratiooh apparently I wasn't paying attention and that was the old machine made in 2000. so in 2000 up until 2025 imax was like 8K+ unless it was shown directly off of 70mm film, that could be up to like 16k according to the google
>>220104047the guy said its 6,144 pixels high so 6,144x8,000 is like a quarter/third depending on how you do it, bigger than 8k. 8k is 33mp and this is like 49mp.that's like 1.3:1, Imax is supposed to be 1.43:1 so he might have rounded down and it's like 8,786 across which would be 59mp which is like right in between 8k and 16k
I bet getting the job of running the scanner is like being a riverboat captain where you have to be the son of a guy who did it.
>>220104047What film did he scan? Home footage of his alter ego?
>>220105704it sounds like it's been 1 guy for over 25 years. I wonder how much active work he has to do
