• 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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're misunderstanding something. Here's an explanation:

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/9677.html

IMAX footage shot on 70mm film with an IMAX camera is archived/processed at 8k.

All other traditional 35mm/4k footage is archived/processed at 4k.

For Dark Knight, a movie shot with 35mm and 70mm film, they used both processes.

For Star Trek, shot entirely on 35mm, it's archived/processed at 4k.

A Star Trek 15/70 print was made from 35mm film scanned at 4k, uprezzed, then printed on 15/70. They didn't scan/archive Star Trek at 8k, nor is there any benefit to scanning 35mm film at 8k.

I don't see any screen door effect at all watching IMAX digital, but I never sit in the neck-cramping front row either.
 
Where are you getting this "increased" audio quality from? I'm betting the audio track/codec used in a liemax theatre is the same as of their other screens. Either DTS or Dolby Digital (EX probably).

Sure the imax screen might have bigger/better speakers, but that doesn't make it worth it (imho).
 
Originally posted by: abaez
Sure the imax screen might have bigger/better speakers, but that doesn't make it worth it (imho).
Click to expand...
Exactly, that's your opinion. Some people think their Bose HTIB is the end-all-be-all of sound systems, and the neighbor down the street with a calibrated set of Axioms/Paradigms/etc. can't be that much better. I mean they're both playing the same audio track/codec from the same DVD/Blu-Ray, right?
 
Originally posted by: destrekor
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.
Click to expand...

i saw matrix reloaded there
mmmm
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're misunderstanding something. Here's an explanation:

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/9677.html

IMAX footage shot on 70mm film with an IMAX camera is archived/processed at 8k.

All other traditional 35mm/4k footage is archived/processed at 4k.

For Dark Knight, a movie shot with 35mm and 70mm film, they used both processes.

For Star Trek, shot entirely on 35mm, it's archived/processed at 4k.

A Star Trek 15/70 print was made from 35mm film scanned at 4k, uprezzed, then printed on 15/70. They didn't scan/archive Star Trek at 8k, nor is there any benefit to scanning 35mm film at 8k.

I don't see any screen door effect at all watching IMAX digital, but I never sit in the neck-cramping front row either.
Click to expand...

i wasn't talking about the original film source resolution. that varies. in any case we are talking about delivery, and thats what matters. with 4k at such a screen size the resolution doesn't cut it unless you need glasses. and actually imax saves their stuff at up to 12k. the screen door effect happens independently of the resolution of the digital video file. it is a consequence of the projectors resolution.
 
i remember seeing the last star wars movie at the new england aquarium imax. the screen was much closer than the (museum of science) mugar theater. at the beginning of the movie, "DVD PLAY" appeared in the corner of the screen :roll: the PQ was terrible, but the masses don't know shit from shinola. never again.
 
Yikes, was going to buy tickets for the one outside of New Orleans tomorrow, anyone know if the one in the suburbs outside of NOLA is bogus? (not the one at the aquarium)

That website does not seem to list it.
 
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Yikes, was going to buy tickets for the one outside of New Orleans tomorrow, anyone know if the one in the suburbs outside of NOLA is bogus? (not the one at the aquarium)

That website does not seem to list it.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by bogus? And what movie are you seeing?

As mentioned earlier in this thread, Star Trek is not an IMAX movie. It was shot on 35mm film. There is no enhanced video resolution from seeing it on a standard IMAX screen versus a IMAX digital screen. The audio quality between standard and digital IMAX theaters is the same.

The only difference is perceived size and perspective. In my opinion, standard IMAX is crap for watching Hollywood feature films. In standard IMAX, the screen takes up your entire forward field of view. This is great for traditional IMAX movies that want to convey a sense of motion to the viewer, but for Hollywood feature films your eyes are darting all over the place to see the entire frame. If you're susceptible to motion sickness, watching on a standard IMAX screen isn't even a good idea.

IMAX digital screens are large, but you can still comfortably view the entire frame without shifting your eyes too much.
 
Interesting Digg post on this as well that outlines fake/real theaters on google maps. Looks like there's 2 fake ones and 1 real one near me...I saw Superman Returns on the real one. I go to the fake ones, but not to see "IMAX" movies. Good to know that they're fake anyways - which I suspected.
 
First off IMO a REAL "IMAX" screen is a domed screen. Now obviously major Hollywood theaters don't film to take advantage of that, but honestly that is a whole new experience to see a true Dome IMAX movie.
We don't have "IMAX" flat screens like everyone says around here. Marcus has to be special and do "UltraScreen" (The UltraView® auditoriums, boast a screen 75 feet wide by 32 feet tall.*)
 
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...

Yes. Exactly. The one in Chicago was one of the 1st 3 in the US. I used to drive down there ANY TIME a new movie was released (this was late 80's early 90s). The Dome Theaters like at the Milwaukee Public Museum, Science and Industry and similar are the ONLY way to fly.
 
The problem is that he is of Indian descent, and, stereotypically speaking, Indians are the biggest bargain hunters I've ever seen. I am in the service industry and I deal with them a lot. They are notoriously horrible tippers; worse, they wring the most out of everything, insisting repeatedly for a lower price and working you the hardest. Watching the entire movie and then asking for a refund is typical of their behavior. This guy is a successful comic and better off financially than most of us. Yet he's apoplectic about a lousy five bucks. He obviously didn't need it and now he's got time to blog about it. if it was the "principle of the matter" as he claims, then why wasn't he asking for a refund for EVERYBODY?

And he claims the Twitter thing was a joke? How are we supposed to know that?
Click to expand...

:laugh:
 
From the June 2009 issue of Discover Magazine - 20 Things You Didn't Know About Movies:

16. The grand IMAX format was developed by four young would-be film moguls from Canada who hastily rented and furnished swanky offices to impress potential Japanese investors. It worked: Fuji Bank supported the venture.

17. The Canadians then raced to invent a system that could shoot on film 10 times the size of the 35 mm format and fill a screen six stories high.

18. An IMAX projector weighs as much as a male hippo, costs $5 million, and has a bulb so bright that, if pointed upward, it could be seen by astronauts on the International Space Station.

Boston's Museum of Science has a great IMAX theatre. I didn't know the Boston Aquarium had a (faux) IMAX theatre but I now know not to got there.

More from above article:

19. Apollo 13, Armageddon, and Around the World in 80 Days are among the movies NASA keeps aboard the Space Station.

20. So is So I Married an Axe Murderer.
🙂
 
I always thought the whole point of IMAX was not only the big screen, but the fact that the seats move. I've been to IMAX theatres a few times only though. The closest one is about 300km away.
 
Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
The problem is that he is of Indian descent, and, stereotypically speaking, Indians are the biggest bargain hunters I've ever seen. I am in the service industry and I deal with them a lot. They are notoriously horrible tippers; worse, they wring the most out of everything, insisting repeatedly for a lower price and working you the hardest. Watching the entire movie and then asking for a refund is typical of their behavior. This guy is a successful comic and better off financially than most of us. Yet he's apoplectic about a lousy five bucks. He obviously didn't need it and now he's got time to blog about it. if it was the "principle of the matter" as he claims, then why wasn't he asking for a refund for EVERYBODY?

And he claims the Twitter thing was a joke? How are we supposed to know that?
Click to expand...

:laugh:
Click to expand...

Indian: How much? I'll pay five dollars.

Me: Its ten dollars sir.

Indian: Five dollars?

Me: Ten dollars
 
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I always thought the whole point of IMAX was not only the big screen, but the fact that the seats move.
Click to expand...
Did you insert a quarter first?

WTF are you talking about..."moving seats"?
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I always thought the whole point of IMAX was not only the big screen, but the fact that the seats move.
Click to expand...
Did you insert a quarter first?

WTF are you talking about..."moving seats"?
Click to expand...

Like the ones where you go and it's like a rollercoaster ride or something like that. Sometimes it's a journey through space, or some other thing of that sort, and the screen is so big it feels real because the seats move to make it seem like you are in some kind of vehicle. Never seen those? It's basically a huge theater but all the seats are on hydrolics.
 
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I always thought the whole point of IMAX was not only the big screen, but the fact that the seats move.
Click to expand...
Did you insert a quarter first?

WTF are you talking about..."moving seats"?
Click to expand...

Like the ones where you go and it's like a rollercoaster ride or something like that. Sometimes it's a journey through space, or some other thing of that sort, and the screen is so big it feels real because the seats move to make it seem like you are in some kind of vehicle. Never seen those? It's basically a huge theater but all the seats are on hydrolics.
Click to expand...

Universal Studios Florida?
 
I always assumed that IMAX meant what this guy thought it did. I've never come across anything less.
 
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I always thought the whole point of IMAX was not only the big screen, but the fact that the seats move.
Click to expand...
Did you insert a quarter first?

WTF are you talking about..."moving seats"?
Click to expand...

Like the ones where you go and it's like a rollercoaster ride or something like that. Sometimes it's a journey through space, or some other thing of that sort, and the screen is so big it feels real because the seats move to make it seem like you are in some kind of vehicle. Never seen those? It's basically a huge theater but all the seats are on hydrolics.
Click to expand...

Universal Studios Florida?
Click to expand...

lol reds lost it😛

there are a few ride specific large screens. but most really big imax are stationary. i've never seen a full size one that moved. days of thunder had a reasonable size screen, but its not imax big. imax big is ...well u know it when u see it.
 
The one in my town is 95 x 72 feet. I guess that's big. I remember watching Spiderman-2, Spiderman-3, 300, The Dark Knight and maybe a few others I can't quite recollect right now. The full frame IMAX sequences in The Dark Knight -> EPIC.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The larger IMAX theaters also won't be 3D compatible when Avatar comes out, while IMAX digital theaters will.
Click to expand...

This is not correct, they'll just make right eye/left eye prints like they always have for the film IMAX units.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top