Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: IMAX dome vs. flat

This is topic IMAX dome vs. flat in forum Large Format Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000073

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 05-26-2004, 02:30 PM:

Which do you prefer? I preffer flat because as far as I can tell you see more of the image. It seems like the domes tend to clip the edges off a little. Also from what I've seen, the domes dont seem to focus as nicely, and have strange distortion in some shots.

Your thoughts?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-26-2004, 02:49 PM:

I find that the IMAX format is generally too tall. We have two eyes side by side, and as such we see "wider" than "taller". As a result, I find the domes more enjoyable simply because I get lost in the film more. With the flat screens, you can see the edges of the screen and that loses some of the effect of such a large image. You will notice most IMAX films are framed to have excess headroom anyway, so the way I have always noticed things, the top part was not necessarily meant to be seen. At least that's my take on it.

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 05-26-2004, 03:45 PM:

I think Imax Dome is great for underwater and
space films. But other types of films suffer
too much from the severe distortion caused by
the dome. Also, the light bouncing around are
washing out details on darker objekts. So in
that case I prefer the flat screen.

But I really enjoy both.

Thomas

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 05-26-2004, 04:20 PM:

I can't handle the distortion the dome creates on films not created for domes. It's unfortunate that our local museum put in a dome, but I guess it is more "museum-like" to have a dome...

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-26-2004, 05:14 PM:

I dislike the dome also, again because of the distortion.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-26-2004, 05:25 PM:

Films shot especially for the dome look great. Some flat films look good, especially underwater movies. Anything with horizon lines or actually any straight line looks very weird.

Most effective flat film I've seen in a dome was about whales. This giant animal coming out of the murkiness was a terrific scene. A film I saw about stormchasers wasn't good at all on the dome.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-26-2004, 05:29 PM:

I liked both, both as an operator and as a viewer, but prefer the flat screen for its better focus and lack of distortion. One advantage of working in the typical dome booth is it's quieter than the typical flat screen booth. With the machine up in its doghouse it's actually nice down below, not sounding like the inside of a Vietnam-era Huey gunship on an insert mission. [Smile]

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 05-26-2004, 05:33 PM:

I prefer the flat IMAX screens. After seeing " Mission to Mir " on the Dome, and when the rocket took off it started to curve sharply to the left, which was very distracting.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-26-2004, 06:38 PM:

I much prefer the flat Large format screen system... can't handle the distortion a dome creates either. Also, no need to say "That I" name here cause there are many other L.F. flat and dome systems out there. Some but very few things look appropriate on a dome system. They are built generally because of lack of space at a facility vs. the amount of space it takes to build a flat screen auditorium.

Brads thought of the flat screen being too tall is somewhat appropriate but "Big I" cameraman are trained to compose differently and to keep action or the center of attraction so to say in the lower third of the frame. Unfortunately some DP's decide not to follow the "Big I's" compositional suggestions and still make use of the whole frame anyway... and then yes, it can be annoying. That top area is mainly intended in composition for slightly exceeding periphial vision.

Mark

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 05-27-2004, 12:47 AM:

Relating to "flat" screen IMAX: yes, the "official" horizon mark for framing is about 2/3 down, not the center. The realism of something shot this way is indeed the extended image outside of peripheral. The sky will appear more like sky because it's there, but you don't focus on it. And if you're seated close to the screen (about row 7), as the system is designed (especially for 3D), the screen does extend along the horizontal peripheral quite well also. Of course, if you sit in the back row, you're just going to be watching a big television.

Ever seen an IMAX brand title on DVD? It definitely looks like they didn't frame it correctly ... unless there are titles that have some "formatted to fit your television" cropping and stuff.

I haven't seen enough IMAX dome presentations, but I wasn't too impressed with those I did see. There were marks (seams?) all over that were really noticeable during light scenes. I prefer the "flat".

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-27-2004, 09:18 AM:

The first OmniMax film was Atmos and it looked good on a dome and not so good like like most Omnimax films look distorted on the flat screen.

As for horizon lines and the like one of the old rules of composition is divide the frame into what used to be reffered to as the golden thirds and place the centres of interest on there junctions

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 05-27-2004, 05:09 PM:

I understand that many standard IMAX films are shown on dome screens with certain limitations.

But was is not the original concept of IMAX Dome (wasn't it called Omnimax back then?) to use special wide angle lenses in photography to account for the dome projection, while IMAX films were shot with slightly longer focal lengths?
In other words, was it ever intended to run "flat" IMAX on dome screens, or was this just a commercial necessity?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-27-2004, 05:49 PM:

Omnimax was developed as a film system for planetariums
yes a fish eye lens is used on the camera for a true omnimax film

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-27-2004, 09:08 PM:

Yes, the fisheye on the camera makes it appear properly when projected on the dome, but I can only think of one or possibly two films done exclusively with the fisheye lens. When done right the dome system can definately increase the pukeability of a given scene.

Mark

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-27-2004, 09:47 PM:

Can anyone post a scan of a standard flat IMAX frame vs an IMAX dome frame? I'm sure the flat frame looks normal, I'm just wondering what a frame of the dome formatted film looks like.

Posted by Jimmy Peters (Member # 886) on 05-28-2004, 11:30 PM:

Too much light ping-ponging due to the curved surface. Maybe,
change the gain of the screen surface. Info [Big Grin]

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-29-2004, 03:11 AM:

I've never seen the dome version; there isn't one in this country. There is one not far from where I stay when I'm that side of the water, but I've never managed to get there. Maybe next year.

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 05-31-2004, 12:56 PM:

Imax Dome or OMNIMAX, looks great on 3D.
Saw a film Echos of the Sun in Imax Solido (Dome plus 3D)
Absolutly amazing!
Sat in the middle the whole screen came to life.
Flat Imax 3D seems to loose so much light at the top and corners due to silvered screen.
Best Flat is 2D on White scrren i reckon.

I Saw 2D Flat film Fires of Kuwait on Omnimax screen and it lookd very poor.

So I prefer 3D on Dome
2D on Flat

Darren

Posted by Andrew Lee (Member # 1330) on 05-31-2004, 04:18 PM:

The Solido system was and still is the ultimate in 3D presentations. Unfortunately there were very few installations of this system due to lack of films and the high cost of operating and maintaining such a high end theatre.

The dome surface for Solido was in fact a high gain silver coating as opposed to the grey finish of a standard Omnimax (Imax Dome). The Solido dome was especially good at preventing cross reflections thereby enhancing picture contrast. The contrast and brightness levels in a Solido dome were 5 times that of a regular 2D dome presentation. IMAX Dome screens have always had a flat grey finish which aided in preventing cross reflections as well as having a natural contrast enhancing capability.

By the way I have the film frame specs for the IMAX Dome system. I just have to find them. When I do I will post them here.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 05-31-2004, 10:47 PM:

Is there any difference between "Omnimax" and "IMAX Dome"? Omnimax at Ceasar's Palace is called, well, Omnimax (duh!), but the Museum Of Science and Industry in Tampa has a dome theater that they just refer to as the IMAX Dome. As far as I can tell they are the same thing. Why two names?

When I was in Tampa a few weeks ago, I managed to get a really nice long tour of the booth at MOSI. One of the things we talked about was 3D on a dome, and the projectionist said it doesn't work too well on the dome. Don't remember exactly why. I guess that's not entirely accurate, is it?

I did not know that there were films shot specifically for the dome. Is that mostly what the Omnimax and IMAX Dome theaters play?

I remember seeing Fires of Kuwait many years ago at Ceasars. There is one scene that will always stand out in my mind: the big tube that they were using to vent the smoke from the fires. Don't know if it was curved in real life or if it went straight up, but I remember it sure was cured on the screen. Quite noticeably. I assume that was due to distortion from the dome. But I have seen lots of other films at Ceasars, and don't recall any distortion.

Overall, I really like the dome. I feel more like I'm actually in the movie. I like how it surrounds you. The only thing I don't like is those very noticeable seams. They can be very distracting. Other than that, I'd have to say I prefer the dome.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-01-2004, 12:58 AM:

Omnimax was the older name, IMAX Dome is the current name.

As has been mentioned, only a few films were shot specifically for dome screens. Most films are shot for flat because they'll run reasonably well on both screens, whereas a dome film shown on a flat screen will have severe barrel distortion plus a significant portion of the frame will be black (the dome aperture is a truncated oval set within the rectangular IMAX frame).

Apparently there was a printing process that allowed flat-screen films to be printed for dome screening (the so-called "shrink" prints), but I don't think that has been used very much. The demand just isn't there.

I remember in The Dream is Alive the helicopter shot just before the static shot of the first launch shown is different depending on the print (flat or dome). In the flat version, the camera runs down the beach a ways with the pad framed over to the far left, then turns towards the pad while simultaneously climbing, producing a rather super looking "crane" shot. In the dome version, the camera tracks straight towards the pad, starting from out over the ocean, then climbs--there is no turn. Don't remember noticing any other IMAX films over the years that had alternate shots between the two kinds of prints, but there probably were others.

I worked at the Caesars Omnimax off and on for a couple of years. The screen was an embarrassment, but everything else there was kept in good running condition. Once Dave Huskinson became the head projectionist there, it was a great place to work with good IATSE pay and culinary union benefits. Of course it's gone now--replaced by the Colosseum where Celine Dion now reigns. As for IMAX experience, I used to hang out a lot in the booth at the then new Mitsubishi IMAX in LA when Bruce Simballa was the head projectionist there. So I got to see lots of titles run in both formats. Sure do miss working with that stuff.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-01-2004, 03:18 PM:

I saw "Echoes of the Sun" in 3D IMAX SOLIDO at the Fujitsu theatre in Chiba Japan in October 1991. When I first walked into the theatre, I was disappointed that you could see every seam in the perforated metal high gain dome screen. Once the movie started, the screen disappeared, and you were "in" the movie, surrounded by the action. I agree, a unique and memorable experience! [Cool]

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 06-01-2004, 05:15 PM:

WHAT!!??? Omnimax at Ceasars is GONE??? Excuse me while I take a moment....

What is this Colosseum?

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-02-2004, 01:15 AM:

Ken, where have you been? [Wink]

Caesars Palace Omnimax 1979-2000 RIP

The Colosseum at Caesars Palace

[ 11-29-2004, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 06-02-2004, 12:02 PM:

Under a rock, apparently. [Wink]

I haven't been to Vegas in about 6 or 7 years.

I see that the "RIP Omnimax" thread was created in 2000. I hadn't even heard of Film-Tech then. I became a member in late 2001. So I never even saw that thread.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-02-2004, 01:02 PM:

whatever happened to 'Le Tapis Magique' at Futuroscope? Is it still there? Was the system ever installed anywhere else. I've never been to see the place; maybe one day. I keep saying that, at my age there are not enough days left.

Posted by Andrew Lee (Member # 1330) on 06-02-2004, 01:57 PM:

Le Tapis Magique or Magic Carpet (IMAX) is still at Furturoscope. In fact they are making a new film for this venue which should be showing by this summer. There are no other venues like this in the world but rumour has it that a similar design is being worked on for a venue in China.

John, those seams you saw in Chiba were impossible to prevent. Manufacturing a high gain silver finished dome screen without seams is just plain impossible. However, as you mentioned, the vibrant colours and rich contrast of "Echoes" along with the 3D effect all but eliminated that aspect of the presentation.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 06-02-2004, 02:26 PM:

I always liked the old "Cinema-180" (OmniVision) half-dome projection, especially when the films were true 65/70mm filmed with wide angle lenses, I remember being very impressed with a short film called FLIGHT 747 and another called IMPACT. (Ooops, this is only 5-perf, doesn't belong here... [Embarrassed]

)
But I always wished I could see an old 70mm title like PATTOn (large number of extreme wide-angle shots!) on a Cinema-180 screen!

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 11-29-2004, 06:14 PM:

Here's a (albiet poor quality) scan of a few Omnimax frames. I'd love to know which movie it came from.

Posted by Mike Bianchi (Member # 271) on 12-21-2004, 03:50 PM:

Brad Miller Said:

quote: Brad Miller
We have two eyes side by side, and as such we see "wider" than "taller".

And I say: viva Cinerama!

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 12-21-2004, 11:30 PM:

quote: Andrew Lee
There are no other venues like this in the world but rumour has it that a similar design is being worked on for a venue in China.

Andrew,
I just finished the install in China, and heard a few remarks from people that have been to Futuroscope say that the park is copied after it. We installed 2) 3D systems and 1) 2D system. The 2D is on a 24 meter dome and is a 8/70 motion based ride. The big screen is about 18 X 24 meters and shows 8/70 3D and 35MM with top and bottom movable masking. The smaller screen is about 12 X 16 meters and is in their 4D house.

Rick

Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 12-24-2004, 09:11 AM:

I do like the IMAX system, as the late Bill Sham from Imax said once, 'We don't see the world through a letterbox'.

IMAX does fill your whole field of vision. A large 2.2:1 70mm screen is impressive and does the job well but add the same again top and bottom of that and it is a whole different experience, more life like in my opinion.

Darren

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-24-2004, 11:10 AM:

I never liked the dome experience much. It just seems unnatural to be looking at life up on the ceiling for an hour, at least for most subject matter. OK, underwater and flying stories might lend themselves to an "up in the sky" screen placement, but that's a pretty limiting range of stories that you can tell where the projection system augments the subject matter. Then again, if you have seats that recline far enough, then you are basically laying down and looking straight ahead, not up. There's a marketable concept -- install beds instead of seats -- The Ultimate IMAX Comfort Experience. [Big Grin]

I am assuming that the Omnimax installations will not be showing the DMX converted stuff, will they? -- although Spidy might work when he's swinging from the dome -- ah, add one other subject that will look good on the ceiling.

Then again, since IMAX has pioneered taking film into the digital realm so it can be manipulated to look good back out onto 15/70, one would think it wouldn't be to difficult for them to take any flat film and tell the computer to "adjust" it so as to compensate for the curature of the dome -- thus instant conversion of the entire IMAX library for dome presentation, creating that much more of an increase in stiff neck problems....heh heh.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-24-2004, 02:41 PM:

Bill Shaw. DMR.

The Tech Museum in San Jose is one of several domes that plays DMR and other 15/70 Hollywood product in their Imax Dome theater. There are not any rectified prints, though, and the studios would never pay the additional cost to have rectified dupe negatives produced for so few dome screens that would use them.