Comments on: IMAX Boycott Brewing: Beware the Smaller Screen Scam

By: dipanjan dey

dipanjan dey — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:44:51 +0000

i saw avatar today.the screen in kolkata is around 80 feet tall whereas the image fit only around 2/3rds of it.we saw half blood prince there where the movie covered the entire screen and now it got so small.it is a lot larger than multiplex screens but that is not the point.we do pay the same price as for a normal 3D movie, only less.

i wish that imax digital was never invented.hope that imax develops any thing that will be larger than this.

in india,kolkata and mumbai have two 4k projectors and hyderabad has 2 k projectors.but still the 4 ks were small compared to the montrous screen.

By: Steve Arpo

Steve Arpo — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:49:06 +0000

I have seen AVATAR twice at the U.K’s Manchester film-based IMAX-GT theatre. The moving image niether filled the IMAX screen top to bottom OR left to right. Looking at the aspect ratio of the projected film frame it seems that it could have easily been blown up to fill virtually the entire screen and still preserved the original aspect ratio. Why was it projected in this way?

By: Tom Chapin

Tom Chapin — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:49:57 +0000

I think a lot of people like IMAX because the screen is so large that they can’t comprehend the whole picture. They interpret this sensation as being “immersive”.

Let me ask you a question: When you go to the theater, do you sit in the first 2 rows (right up next to the screen), or do you try to sit near the middle of the theater where you can get optimum viewing (and surround sound) and can take in the whole picture?

Just because something goes outside the bounds of your viewing area doesn’t make it “immersive”. If anything, it simply means that you’re too close to the screen.

Do an experiment the next time you’re at a normal theater: Sit in the first two rows. Ta da! The IMAX Experience!

By: Empire56KWTHX

Empire56KWTHX — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:02:20 +0000

Well I saw Star Trek at the famous Empire Leicester Square London in its screen 1 JBL 56KW THX sound system Dolby digital cinema.

I wonâ€™t even go near an IMAX anymore with its wimpy 12KW. Even the Empire with its original JBL 13KW THX was in my face plenty of times in the past. The headroom at the Empire is far better than IMAX.

By: Steve Harford

Steve Harford — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:39:53 +0000

Just echoing a lot of the comments here. I have been going to, ‘real’ IMAX for a long time now and it is by far the best film medium known to man and still way ahead of its time. It’s a great pity that IMAX don’t have the balls to see the project through and have dumbed-down their own vision. They are also betraying the great body of IMAX film producres and directors that have developed this fantastic medium to where it is today. Although it breaks my heart I say boycott LIEMAX and let them sink. Unfortunately the true IMAX GT theatres will sink into the mud to be fossiled under the weight of mediocrity that defines the start of this century. Thanks IMAX – nice one!

By: Cinema Photographer

Cinema Photographer — Tue, 19 May 2009 11:06:54 +0000

IMAX is a format, and a brand but now the 2 are being intermixed.

If it’s not shot with IMAX format cameras its NOT going to be IMAX (ok, it could be CGI’d in IMAX), its not just the screen size, its the aspect ratio etc.

Using the IMAX brand in the smaller theatres is wrong and plain daft as they are diluting their brand.

On 3D – the 3D they are showing is not the latest and greatest technology; if you are in the UK and want to compare, try to see a 3D presentation at The Empire in Leicester Square; Blows IMAX 3D away (theres a reason they are hosting most of the 3D premieres this year). The technology is totally different with no fringing or ghosting.

(Oh, ad btw, The Empire has a 58ft screen, but presents at the “proper” formats in digital….. so it its large and loud and you are in London…

By: flargle

flargle — Sun, 17 May 2009 22:18:19 +0000

@scoville. Yes IMAX is a brand name, like Samsung. The problem is that IMAX and the theater chains are using the same name for two different products(IMAX vs. IMAX Digital). When you bought your Samsung phone, the salesman didn’t call it an HDTV did he?

By: Alien_Hybrid

Alien_Hybrid — Fri, 15 May 2009 03:22:04 +0000

For the first time ever, I shelled out extra cash to see Star Trek in IMAX. I didn’t really know what the IMAX experience was but I was totally psyched by the large mega screen. I can tell you I would have been really piss off, annoyed and unimpressed if it had played on a smaller screen after being advertised as an IMAX “experience” movie. Theaters need to get real. Smaller screen IMAX movies should probably not be advertised as the genuine IMAX experience. It’s an outright rip off. I would not pay extra cash for that. It’s like paying for a GMC Yukon XL Denali and getting a Chevy Cobalt, then being told by the car dealer to suck it up because they’re both cars made by General Motors.

By: scoville

scoville — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:11:33 +0000

IMAX is a brand name.

I don’t get all bent out of shape because my Samsung phone doesn’t display as well as my Samsung HDTV.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:31:51 +0000

@swarez. Would it really cut the camcorder piracy? I mean theatre-cam 600Mb files look like such ass, and people seem to still watch them, what is a little stereoscopic blur in the image going to do to deter people.

Ass is more or less the same as Pimply-Ass.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:23:52 +0000

On the real IMAX, The Dark Knight segments were jaw droppingly good, well worth the $3 premium.

The ‘digital Imax’ (or LieMax) uses a smaller screen because I don’t think the digital projector can blow up that big, and I also think Imax is looking to expand into more multiplexes, on the cheap. It’s not 70mm film.

Lastly I saw THE MATRIX: Reloaded blown up from 35mm to 70mm and projected on a real IMAX screen and it was also a very solid experience. Because 35mm film is a chemical emulsion and analogue, it can actually blow up quite fine to 70mm and look great on the massive screen. However, flaws in the actors make-up and some lighting of scenes were drawn attention to when the audience was able to ‘look closer’ due to the 70mm format. So more care is required by the filmmakers when the expectation of expanding to 70mm for an IMAX presentation is in the works.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:19:39 +0000

Even the current generation of 3D is not worth a price increase. The technology (no matter how improved it is from 1980s incarnation) is still not up to snuff. It’s darker, suffers around the edges (especially IMAX 3D) and personally for me causes a pretty serious headache after about the 45 minute mark (Beowulf, Nightmare before Christmas, and Coraline all did this to me, and Nightmare was only retrofitted 3D and used sparingly!).

I’ll be seeing UP and Avatar in 2D, and be pretty happy about it.

3D is the silliest over-rated thing. Maybe in 2020 we’ll be talking, but in 2090, FAIL.