• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Plague of fake IMAX screens

Yes, we have a real Imax screen aroudn here, but I wrote a letter to the IMAX company that I'm not going there anymore because of this. Sticking an IMAX name on a "slightly larger" than normal screen so they can jack up the ticket price is quite shady.

When looking for their email address I discovered its a Canadian company. So, as is usually the case, we can blame Canada for this one too!
 
There are sort of 3 breeds of IMAX theaters out there today.

Traditional IMAX: The REALLY big rooms sporting the 80x100ish foot screens and running the older 15/70mm projectors. These aren't' built much anymore outside institutional (museums, zoos, etc) users.

IMAX MPX: Still a big room in which hangs a 45x70ish sheet and uses a less costly/complicated 15/70mm projector. Seating rake is between traditional IMAX and conventional stadium. Some of these are getting converted to digital to reduce print cost as IMAX film prints are extremely expensive.

IMAX Digital: Getting wedged into any convenient larger room at existing multiplexes using 50-60ft wide sheets and moved forward to provide enhanced the perception of size. Projection is accomplished using a proprietary tandem 2K digital rig that overlays the images to achieve a reasonable image quality/brightness.
 
I dunno, I've been to one of the IMAX screens at a local AMC here in Columbus, and the screen, while wasn't huge, sure seemed huge. Seats were close to the screen (but close seats weren't breaking neck staring up at screen - great seating arrangement), and the screen was curved. Most theaters have a flat screen.

The perception of the image is just amazing. It looks beautiful: the picture is sharp, and the image quality is heavenly. I don't know if it was digital, or using the 70mm film. But the picture was outstanding, simply the best image I've seen in movie theater. I saw Transformers in it, and it was magnificent.

To clarify: seeing a full massive IMAX would be awesome, but the sound and picture quality, IMHO, are worthwhile. But that's just me. That and the screen still looks large based on how they designed the theater. The image really popped, that 3D effect some say they see with the greatest HD material in home theaters. Not really 3D, but just the quality of detail makes images look like they stand out more.
 
Digg had a post detailing the location of IMAX and LIEMAX theatres.

Best IMAX I've ever been to was Milwaukee's Public Museum...the domed screen totally envelopes peripheral vision and "puts" you in the experience.
 
Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
Digg had a post detailing the location of IMAX and LIEMAX theatres.

Best IMAX I've ever been to was Milwaukee's Public Museum...the domed screen totally envelopes peripheral vision and "puts" you in the experience.
Click to expand...

That's the OmniMax setup (also known as IMAX Dome nowadays). A lot of museums around the country have that kind of setup. I know the Detroit Science Center has had one as long as I can remember. They do show standard IMAX movies on them though.
 
As much as I'd love to jump aboard the outrage bandwagon, I will still pay $15 to see IMAX versions of my favorite films, for three reasons:

1) I PREFER digital projectors. Uniform brightness/sharpness, no film degradation (dust/scratches), perfect alignment/convergence.

2) Despite IMAX "digital" wide-screens not being as large as traditional square IMAX screens, they are still the largest physical screens (or offer the largest perception of size) in their respective theaters from my experience.

3) ***MOST IMPORTANT REASON*** SOUND. Any theater enthusiast/pro will tell you sound is perhaps the biggest part of the movie theater experience, and IMAX sound quality is hands-down better than traditional theaters.

I saw Star Trek IMAX at the Dole Cannery 18 in Honolulu, and it was worth every last cent.
 
Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
Digg had a post detailing the location of IMAX and LIEMAX theatres.

Best IMAX I've ever been to was Milwaukee's Public Museum...the domed screen totally envelopes peripheral vision and "puts" you in the experience.
Click to expand...

Is it OMNIMAX? We've got one of those here too... it completely fills your field of view.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
As much as I'd love to jump aboard the outrage bandwagon, I will still pay $15 to see IMAX versions of my favorite films, for three reasons:

1) I PREFER digital projectors. Uniform brightness/sharpness, no film degradation (dust/scratches), perfect alignment/convergence.

2) Despite IMAX "digital" wide-screens not being as large as traditional square IMAX screens, they are still the largest physical screens (or offer the largest perception) in their respective theaters from my experience.

3) ***MOST IMPORTANT REASON*** SOUND. Any theater enthusiast/pro will tell you sound is perhaps the biggest part of the movie theater experience, and IMAX sound quality is hands-down better than traditional theaters.
Click to expand...

Digital projection as of yet has nothing on 15/70mm film. The Sony 4K systems that are running true 4K material would be the only thing in the digital world that wouldn't be totally embarrassing to run next to a IMAX print. Generally IMAX prints are VERY carefully handled by specifically trained projectionists due to their extreme expense.

I know a number of conventional theaters that use 60ft or wider sheets in some of their rooms. The IMAX conversions move the screen closer to provide an increased perception of size.

 
Sony Matron in downtown SF has a IMAX screen. Mofo is HUGE and curved. If it ain't curve, it ain't IMAX. Damn, now I wanna watch Star Trek again on IMAX, but ticket price is like $20.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
As much as I'd love to jump aboard the outrage bandwagon, I will still pay $15 to see IMAX versions of my favorite films, for three reasons:

1) I PREFER digital projectors. Uniform brightness/sharpness, no film degradation (dust/scratches), perfect alignment/convergence.

2) Despite IMAX "digital" wide-screens not being as large as traditional square IMAX screens, they are still the largest physical screens (or offer the largest perception of size) in their respective theaters from my experience.

3) ***MOST IMPORTANT REASON*** SOUND. Any theater enthusiast/pro will tell you sound is perhaps the biggest part of the movie theater experience, and IMAX sound quality is hands-down better than traditional theaters.

I saw Star Trek IMAX at the Dole Cannery 18 in Honolulu, and it was worth every last cent.
Click to expand...

The main issue is in NYC we've got a "real" Imax and the fake one. Problem is getting tickets to the real one can be a biatch. But I'd rather wait a couple weeks and see it there for the same price than go to the smaller one.
 
OmniMax FTMFW!

I saw Star Trek at on one at the Franklin Institute's IMAX in Philly. Two words can describe it: FREAKING EPIC.
 
sad.

imax used to mean impeccable quality. no compromise. the brand was awesome enough that you'd hand over 14 or whatever they were charging gladly.

i wouldn't pay a cent more over standard admission for a fake imax
 
I'm totally content to just go to my local (newly opened) AMC all digital movie theater for $6 AM movies.

I saw the 2nd Matrix movie in a real deal IMAX screen down in Miami back in the day and wasn't that impressed really.

Only time I've been since was to see Beowulf in 3D.
 
Originally posted by: ggnl
we don't even have fake imax where I live 🙁
Click to expand...

Same. We have 1 theater with 2 screens (the second screen seats <100 people). It plays 2 movies at a time for 2 weeks. If I want to go to an AMC or something similar I have to drive to the city about an hour away.
 
Anyone know if the new IMAX in Lincoln Square, Bellevue, WA is real or fake? I was surprised to hear that the theater "now has IMAX" totally out of the blue.

My first reaction was, "so, where the f did they put it"?
 
I saw Watchmen at a local IMAX converted theatre in Orange Park and liked it. I got motion sickness watching Starwars at the real IMAX in Tampa and didn't like it at all.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: jpeyton
As much as I'd love to jump aboard the outrage bandwagon, I will still pay $15 to see IMAX versions of my favorite films, for three reasons:

1) I PREFER digital projectors. Uniform brightness/sharpness, no film degradation (dust/scratches), perfect alignment/convergence.

2) Despite IMAX "digital" wide-screens not being as large as traditional square IMAX screens, they are still the largest physical screens (or offer the largest perception) in their respective theaters from my experience.

3) ***MOST IMPORTANT REASON*** SOUND. Any theater enthusiast/pro will tell you sound is perhaps the biggest part of the movie theater experience, and IMAX sound quality is hands-down better than traditional theaters.
Click to expand...

Digital projection as of yet has nothing on 15/70mm film. The Sony 4K systems that are running true 4K material would be the only thing in the digital world that wouldn't be totally embarrassing to run next to a IMAX print. Generally IMAX prints are VERY carefully handled by specifically trained projectionists due to their extreme expense.

I know a number of conventional theaters that use 60ft or wider sheets in some of their rooms. The IMAX conversions move the screen closer to provide an increased perception of size.
Click to expand...
There are a few holes in that argument. The first being that many Hollywood IMAX movies these days come from 35mm/4k stock (the exception being Batman, which had a few scenes filmed with a real IMAX camera).

The second being that with the smaller screen size, differences between 15/70 and digital are less noticeable. This is the primary reason why they don't have digital projectors for their large screens, and vice versa. The larger IMAX theaters also won't be 3D compatible when Avatar comes out, while IMAX digital theaters will.

Lastly, the increased audio quality is reason enough to pay the extra $5 for any "must-see" film. Star Trek = worth it. Dark Knight = worth it. Night At The Museum 2 = fuck no.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: jpeyton
As much as I'd love to jump aboard the outrage bandwagon, I will still pay $15 to see IMAX versions of my favorite films, for three reasons:

1) I PREFER digital projectors. Uniform brightness/sharpness, no film degradation (dust/scratches), perfect alignment/convergence.

2) Despite IMAX "digital" wide-screens not being as large as traditional square IMAX screens, they are still the largest physical screens (or offer the largest perception) in their respective theaters from my experience.

3) ***MOST IMPORTANT REASON*** SOUND. Any theater enthusiast/pro will tell you sound is perhaps the biggest part of the movie theater experience, and IMAX sound quality is hands-down better than traditional theaters.
Click to expand...

Digital projection as of yet has nothing on 15/70mm film. The Sony 4K systems that are running true 4K material would be the only thing in the digital world that wouldn't be totally embarrassing to run next to a IMAX print. Generally IMAX prints are VERY carefully handled by specifically trained projectionists due to their extreme expense.

I know a number of conventional theaters that use 60ft or wider sheets in some of their rooms. The IMAX conversions move the screen closer to provide an increased perception of size.
Click to expand...
There are a few holes in that argument. The first being that many Hollywood IMAX movies these days come from 35mm/4k stock (the exception being Batman, which had a few scenes filmed with a real IMAX camera).

The second being that with the smaller screen size, differences between 15/70 and digital are less noticeable. This is the primary reason why they don't have digital projectors for their large screens, and vice versa. The larger IMAX theaters also won't be 3D compatible when Avatar comes out, while IMAX digital theaters will.

Lastly, the increased audio quality is reason enough to pay the extra $5 for any "must-see" film. Star Trek = worth it. Dark Knight = worth it. Night At The Museum 2 = fuck no.
Click to expand...

wrong wrong wrong, as the articles already point out, imax archives their own films at at least 8k. 4k doesn't cut it. and when projected on such a large screen, it doesn't cut it still. i've noticed the screen door effect on digital films before, and apparently he has as well in his experience with the new imax projectors. because of the regularity of the grid pixel pattern you really have to exceed film resolution before it becomes acceptable, film grain has no such issue. our brains pick out that regular pixel grid pattern with ease. its no where near maxing out the possible quality for such an experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top