quote:

---

REBLOG THE FUCK OUT OF THIS. WARNING: AMC theaters are running FAKE IMAX's and charging $5 extra for a slightly bigger screen. Boycott IMAX, AMC, and Regal. Don't let them fool you.
I went with a friend of mine to see Star Trek: The IMAX Experience at the AMC Theatre in Burbank today. I drove out of my way to see the film on the large IMAX screen and paid an extra $5 for the ticket, which felt worth it at the time.

HOWEVER, we get in the theatre and its just a slightly bigger than normal screen and NOT the usual standard huge 72 ft IMAX screen. I was very upset and apparently this problem is happening all over at Regal and AMC theatres. Here’s a graphic representation of what’s happening at these “FAKE IMAX” screens:



If you don’t want the whole long story, I did some research online and found this article that explains it. Basically IMAX is whoring out their brand name and trying to trick people. These new “IMAX” theatres are really just nice digital screens with good sound, but they ARE NOT IMAX, in that they don’t have the huge 72 ft gigantic screen which people would expect. However, they still charge $5 more for tickets as they would for the regular IMAX.

REGAL, AMC, AND IMAX - YOU ARE LIARS!

Boycott them. Fuck them for taking advantage of people and charging them $5 extra. If you’re in LA, go to the Arclight from now on, and fuck the IMAX screens (fake and real).

Some people at Regal and AMC both wanted to call these screens IMAX Digital so as to differentiate it somehow from the giant IMAX screens people are used to associating with the name IMAX. Apparently IMAX doesn’t see anything wrong with duping customers like this and insisted on simply keeping it as IMAX. Well, I have a better term how about - “BULLSHIT IMAX.” Cause that’s what it is.

According to this piece, IMAX CEO, Richard Gelfond said the company only puts IMAX digital systems into multiplex auditoriums that meet certain criteria. He jokingly said, “It’s a very scientific test. It’s called the ‘wow’ factor. So if you don’t go in and go ‘wow,’ we won’t do it.” HAHAHA! REALLY FUNNY RICHARD!!!! What happens if I go in the theatre and go “This isn’t a fucking IMAX screen, I just got ripped off for $5!!” Do I get my money back?

At the AMC theatre this was my experience at guest services:

Aziz: Yes, I’d like my $5 back. I paid $5 extra for an IMAX screen and that’s not nearly as big as what I have known IMAX to be.
Guest Services: I can’t sir. Its IMAX quality picture and sound.
Aziz: But the screen isn’t big, that’s the whole reason I pay $5 more for IMAX.
Guest Services: Well sir, you watched the whole movie, you could have come out and we could have given you tickets to a different one.
Aziz: Why would I do that? I’d leave Star Trek, the movie I wanted to see and you’d give me a ticket for Ghosts of Girlfriends Past? Oh yeah that’s fair! No, you need to give me the $5 back, its the principle of it. Can I see a manager?

Manager: Sir, we can’t refund the money, you saw the whole film.
Aziz: I don’t want $15, I just want $5 cause AMC lied about IMAX.
Manager: Sir, I can give you popcorn and a drink.
Aziz: I don’t want to go home and drink a nasty soda and eat nasty ass popcorn. I want my $5 back. Its not about the money, its the principle of the matter, ITS NOT IMAX.
Manager: Sorry, I can’t do anything.
Aziz: You know what Twitter is? I have 25,000 followers, I’m tell 25,000 people you run fake IMAX’s and that they should boycott AMC.
Manager: I don’t really care sir.
Aziz: Yeah, I wouldn’t care either if I worked here, but you know you are in the wrong! You should give me $5!!
Manager: SIR, I CAN GIVE YOU POPCORN AND A SODA.
Aziz: I DON’T LIKE POPCORN AND I DON’T LIKE SODA, I WANT MY $5!!!
Manager: Ok here’s two free passes.

UPDATE: In addition to this terrible tragedy, there are also terrible things going on in Darfur. Please Google around for more info on how to help there.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Guy actually got a pretty good deal in the end -- two free passes, worth at least $17 or more

---

A good deal...unless they are valid 'only for IMAX presentations'


 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-13-2009, 12:10 AM:
 
I am glad to see this is spreading. Now someone needs to go after that stupid XD3 Cinemark rip-off.

All the branding in the world won't save a poor quality product. Do it RIGHT and they will come.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-13-2009, 12:28 AM:
 
IMAX has already been damaging their brand. The so-called IMAX-Jr's have been around for many years.

And I think it's a bit wrong to call the exhibitors "liars" for calling it IMAX when that's what the IMAX people want it called. This would be like calling a computer store liars for selling a computer that says "Compaq" on it because there was a time when Compaq computers didn't suck.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-13-2009, 08:33 AM:
 
IMAX is now calling those complaining "purists".

IMAX executives are trying to say that MPX systems, both digital and film, are exactly the same experience as seeing something on a traditional IMAX screen. Anyone who has seen TO FLY or HAIL, COLUMBIA or any of the MANY "made for IMAX" films would most definitely disagree with that idea.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-13-2009, 09:31 AM:
 
Sounds like IMAX thinks it's a soda pop. There are about 20 different types of "Coke" and they are all soft drinks, but only one is the "real thing."
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-13-2009, 09:40 AM:
 
"IMAX" is the new "THX", just a meaningless bunch of letters that are supposed to fool the public into thinking they are getting something better.

quote:

---

Aziz: You know what Twitter is? I have 25,000 followers, I’m tell 25,000 people you run fake IMAX’s and that they should boycott AMC.

---

 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-13-2009, 09:58 AM:
 

quote: Martin McCaffery

---

"IMAX" is the new "THX", just a meaningless bunch of letters that are supposed to fool the public into thinking they are getting something better.

---

quote: Richard Gelfond, IMAX CEO

---

It’s a very scientific test. It’s called the ‘wow’ factor.

---

Some wow factor. It's more like, "wow, I can't believe I paid $5 more for this crap!"

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

Actually this is more like 70mm in little multiplexes. Big film on small screen. Not quite the same as the road show houses with 125 ft screens.

---

quote:

---

Are Smaller IMAX Screens Worth the Price?
By Stephen Dalton

The lure of watching Star Trek in IMAX has moviegoers shelling out as much as seven extra bucks at the theater with the expectation of getting more screen space.

But most of the company's new digital screens, specifically those built in the past six years, are significantly less than half the screen size of what many consider the traditional 60 foot by 80 foot IMAX (Stock Quote: IMAX). The size of these smaller screens varies, but one set of dimensions is 25 feet by 58 feet (see the graph, below). These surprisingly inconsistent dimensional requirements for IMAX screens (despite a ticket premium of as much as 40%) are making some moviegoers madder than a Klingon.

Recently actor and comedian Aziz Ansari unleashed a profanity-ridden yet honest rant on his personal blog after feeling duped into paying an extra $5 for what he deemed a not-large-enough IMAX experience. Most new IMAX digital screens, which are not differentiated by name from their behemoth science center-sized forebears, are only slightly larger in size than traditional movie theater screens.

It may not be an out and out scam, but the lack of specifics in terms of what size screen qualifies as "IMAX" is confusing consumers.

Industry Pro: IMAX "Brand Dilution" Exists
James Hyder, editor and publisher of LF Examiner, the self-proclaimed "independent journal of the large format motion picture industry," is surprised IMAX has gotten away for so long with what he calls “brand dilution."

“The size of the screen is much smaller than the older IMAX, and the digital quality is only slightly better than conventional digital," says Hyder. "Most of the people who go to the new digital theaters must not have been to a real IMAX theater ever.” According to IMAX, 72 of its 138 screens are the smaller size, or just more than half.

IMAX Responds: More than Size Matters
MainStreet spoke to Richard Gelfond, CEO of IMAX, who defended IMAX against Ansari's rant and other blogs covering the issue.

Gelfond says more modest IMAX screens in local multiplexes have been around for at least six years. Despite Ansari’s outrage, Gelfond says the positive feedback from consumer testing and ticket sales at these IMAX theaters is significant.

“IMAX did 15% of Star Trek’s total domestic box office in the whole country on only 138 screens," which is less than 2% of all movie theatres, says Gelfond. "This is compared to the earlier releases of Watchmen, where we did 12% of the box office and Monsters and Aliens, where we did around 10%. Clearly a lot of people are going back to IMAX theaters.”

Gelfond also points out that not everyone shares Ansari’s views. “The overwhelming majority of comments on that guy’s blog this morning, more than 90% of them, are vehemently disagreeing with him. And consumers are confirming this with their continued purchases of tickets.”

Movie Lovers: What You Need to Know
For those confused by the differences between IMAX and traditional screens, Gelfond says the pricier IMAX experience is more than just screen size.

The version of the film projected on IMAX is different from that shown in traditional movie theaters, he says. The resolution is increased using a process called Digital Remastering, the sound quality is enhanced, and several front rows of seating are removed to improve the viewer’s experience (read: prevent neck cramps).

Budget-minded Star Trek fans should familiarize themselves with the details of the new projection system on IMAX’s web site and should check for the details at your local IMAX theater before purchasing tickets. Don't boldly go where you might be surprised by the lack of screen space.

---

quote:

---

Gelfond says more modest IMAX screens in local multiplexes have been around for at least six years.

---

quote: Stephen Dalton

---

The version of the film projected on IMAX is different from that shown in traditional movie theaters, (Richard Gelfond, IMAX CEO) says. The resolution is increased using a process called Digital Remastering, the sound quality is enhanced, and several front rows of seating are removed to improve the viewer’s experience (read: prevent neck cramps).

---

Exactly how is anyone going to take a 2K digital intermediate based Hollywood movie, throw some in "digital remastering" and still expect to see more pixels of detail by feeding the file into a 2K digital projector? Why would any "digital remastering" be needed in the first place? It's freaking 2K to 2K. Not anything else.


The "DMR" stuff really only works when re-sampling that HDTV-quality image up to film-based output. That also brings up another problem with these articles of late regarding IMAX Digital. Hardly any of them understand the difference 15-perf 70mm projection makes in a IMAX house. The giant screen is important, but so is the giant format projector.

I remain unconvinced about the audio system side of things -mainly due to how large theater chains like AMC, Regal, etc. routinely under-equip and poorly maintain their sound systems. What's the difference with IMAX? They're doing a competent job with audio in that one auditorium and you're now expected to pay a $5+ premium for it?.

Regarding the seats, the first few rows in just about any stadium seated auditorium are largely unnecessary. In most stadium seated houses the audience gravitates to the back rows of the room, which are also the highest rows in the auditorium.

I see absolutely no relevance at all for IMAX Digital to exist. It is a stupid waste of money both for customers and movie theater managers/executives considering adding such installations.
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-13-2009, 03:51 PM:
 
I have seen and loved all of the movies I saw in the original 15/70 IMAX format. With that in mind, I have no problem with the current digital format because the projected aspect ratio of commercial films in scope in a digital IMAX theatre is just about the the same size on a full 15/70 IMAX screen. I would have a problem if a digital IMAX theatre would try to show a full frame IMAX film like THE DREAN IS ALIVE or EVEREST by severely cropping picture information from the top and bottom but that is not the case with today's digital IMAX films. I do agree the new digital format should not have been introduced as a digital version of IMAX which it is not. When it comes to IMAX sound, both 15/70 IMAX and Digital IMAX sound the
same as far as I can tell.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-13-2009, 04:10 PM:
 
Here's the critical issue:

You're presented with a choice: 2K digital projection or IMAX branded 2K digital projection with a ticket price $5 or more higher. What will you choose?
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 05-13-2009, 07:16 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

You're presented with a choice: 2K digital projection or IMAX branded 2K digital projection with a ticket price $5 or more higher. What will you choose?

---

If those are my only two choices, I'll wait for the BluRay and watch it on my 124" 2.4:1 screen at home.


 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-13-2009, 07:30 PM:
 
Imax probably should have just licensed the sound system and participated in its design and installation in multiplex theatres.

Assuming that the "Imax Jr." sound system really is just as good as the "real thing," they could have just licensed that for theatres to use along with standard 35/70mm or DLP projection. If they came up with a good name for it, they could have skipped all the R&D for the digital projection system and actually had a superior product to offer to the public. I'd pay an extra $1-2/ticket to see a film in a house with an amazing sound system. I would not pay an extra $5/ticket to see an "Imax Jr." show, assuming that it is as unimpressive as everyone here seems to think it is.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-13-2009, 08:56 PM:
 
Well, Film is obsolete... so like it or not this is how it's going to be!! Also, do you ever stop to think how much of those 15/70 films are actually shot with 8/70 cameras!!! Alot more than you'd care to know about... They use them for many reasons from the cameras being lighter in weight to lower negative stock costs and every other reason in between. There are also more 8/70 cameras in existance than 15/70. See... You've been cheated all along! The difference in grain between the two formats is very obvious.

The biggest problem here and one that I agree with is that IMAX has to differentiate the different systems somehow so the general public understands what they are getting for their bucks.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-13-2009, 09:10 PM:
 
Anyone who says they have 25,000 followers on Twitter as a threat should get escorted out the building just for being lame. It really doesn't have the same ring as "I'm gonna kick your ass" (insert your own expletives).

When I saw the pictures of the conversion at one of the Odeons I thought "wow that is a small IMAX screen" not "wow that is a big screen for a multiplex". IMAX should dump the "IMAX Digital" brand now while they can and get some good marketing consultants in to get audiences thinking the latter.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-13-2009, 09:39 PM:
 
They shouldn't even be calling "IMAX Digital" IMAX at all. Honestly, if they're going to kill off the film-based side of their business and cut 15/70mm based theaters adrift then they just need to change their name to something else and perhaps do like Scott suggested: sell a nice sound system.

Even on the sound issue, I think it's a bit unfair to charge movie theater customers a price premium for audio done right. Proper sound and projection should be built into the standard ticket price. Unfortunately, that's not the reality in the most commercial movie theaters.

IMAX executives will probably fight it as hard as they can on drawing clear differences between film-based IMAX theaters and the 2K digital ones. That's because most people who look closely enough at the differences will be turned off by IMAX digital and its high ticket price premium.

quote:

---

Well, Film is obsolete... so like it or not this is how it's going to be!!

---

quote:

---

Also, do you ever stop to think how much of those 15/70 films are actually shot with 8/70 cameras!!!

---

Even a blow-up from 8/70mm is going to show a much more detailed image than what a 2K digital projector can throw. Hell, I'd be thrilled if a Hollywood production would shoot in 5/65mm and release that on 5/70 or 8/70 or 15/70 prints.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 05-13-2009, 10:30 PM:
 
Sonics did market their sound system to 35mm houses a few years ago.

It didn't last long and it was a different system than the PPS setup that is presence in most IMAX theaters.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-13-2009, 10:40 PM:
 
Film is obsolete? Care to bet on which will be made longer? Film or DLP?

Steve
 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 05-13-2009, 10:56 PM:
 
I've always considered IMAX to be more 'picture' than sound. Good sound is relatively easy to do nowadays. For the last ten years or so, I was hoping there would be an improvement in picture, like Iscovision or something.

If IMAX (or anyone) simply used regular 5/70 for it's "Jr." process we could cut out all this crap; I'd be willing to pay a few bucks more. But it must be acknowledged the goal of the 'new age' of projection is not to improve the picture, but to eliminate the labor, meaning projectionists.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-13-2009, 11:15 PM:
 

quote: John Walsh

---

But it must be acknowledged the goal of the 'new age' of projection is not to improve the picture, but to eliminate the labor, meaning projectionists.

---

quote:

---

“IMAX did 15% of Star Trek’s total domestic box office in the whole country on only 138 screens," which is less than 2% of all movie theatres, says Gelfond. "This is compared to the earlier releases of Watchmen, where we did 12% of the box office and Monsters and Aliens, where we did around 10%. Clearly a lot of people are going back to IMAX theaters.”

---

quote:

---

“IMAX did 15% of Star Trek’s total domestic box office in the whole country on only 138 screens," ...

---

quote:

---

They needed a minimum screen size (say 80 feet) where the screen is big enough to wow people when they walk in the door.

---

Nah - that's not right. The screen should wow people when it's time for the feature to start and the curtains open!


 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-14-2009, 04:53 PM:
 
This keeps getting better and better:

quote:

---

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Gelfond (IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond) told investors this morning (5/14/09)Imax has patented the ability to remove the first four rows of seats in an auditorium to bring a multiplex screen closer to an audience.

---

quote:

---

This keeps getting better and better:

quote:

---

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Gelfond (IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond) told investors this morning (5/14/09)Imax has patented the ability to remove the first four rows of seats in an auditorium to bring a multiplex screen closer to an audience.

---

---

I guess calling him an idiot in my earlier post was an understatement. I don't even know what to call him now. How do you even go about patenting something like that?

Who wants to invest with me in my new UltraMAX theater. I'm going to file a patent to remove the back 4 rows of the auditorium and replace them with a wall made of drywall and covered in acoustic treatment so that nobody sits far from the screen.

[ 05-14-2009, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 05-14-2009, 05:07 PM:
 
You're ing kidding me!
How much more lame can these suits get??

IWERKS should see an opportunity here as IWANK watch their brand recognition slide down the shute.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 05-14-2009, 06:41 PM:
 
Talking about lame.

Here in Sydney Australia, Hoyts have installed the small Imax(#d) within a 10 minute drive from the largest IMAX Screen in the world. (36 metres wide)

Meanwhile Greater Union cinemas have rebadged their large screen in a multiplex (ie over 20 metres wide) VMAX from its previous name GMAX. I think they do charge a premium for these particular screens.

Now which is lamer? Vmax Gmax or the all new Imax.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harris (Member # 1712) on 05-14-2009, 08:50 PM:
 
My perception of this thread is that if an image, regardless of size, is of proper illumination, focus, color temp, and without frames lines showing, then it should be termed Imax.

If an image is 8 -10 footlamberts, focus skewed to one side, off-color, and with the cone of one speaker blown out, it would be a movie theater.

What Imax seems to be saying is that only they have trained projectionists and tuned hardware.

If this is the case, I'll take Imax.

Or as an alternative, trained projectionists, quality gear, and dump the Imax logo.

I get it.

RAH
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-14-2009, 09:51 PM:
 
3-D and IMAX is simply a way for theatre chains to charge more money for what is supposed to be a better experience.

If IMAX is allowing thier name to be put on something that doesn't cut it, it's really not AMC or Regal's fault. This is an example of the film exhibitors attempting to make a bigger cut of the film's gross after the film company has already taken thier 50 percent +plus.

The reason this has become a big deal *all of a sudden* is that the Trekkies came out in force to see thier film. These are technically savvy individuals who are not afraid of speaking thier mind when it comes to pointing out the difference between the IMAXes of 2009 versus the IMAXes of 10 years ago.

We all know that there is a difference. It's 2009 - nothing is as good as it used to be. Not IMAX and not the crappy movies that Hollywood is putting out.

Let's get back to the basics in this business. When's the last time you saw a film with a good story AND properly presented?


 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-14-2009, 10:04 PM:
 

quote: Dennis Benjamin

---

When's the last time you saw a film with a good story AND properly presented?

---

Hmmm, I don't know. When I watched Schindler's List on dvd at home the other night?


 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-14-2009, 10:37 PM:
 

quote: Dennis Benjamin

---

This is an example of the film exhibitors attempting to make a bigger cut of the film's gross after the film company has already taken thier 50 percent +plus.

---

quote: Robert Harris

---

What Imax seems to be saying is that only they have trained projectionists and tuned hardware.

---

quote:

---

Gelfond says the pricier IMAX experience is more than just screen size.

The version of the film projected on IMAX is different from that shown in traditional movie theaters, he says. The resolution is increased using a process called Digital Remastering, the sound quality is enhanced,

---

quote: Robert Harris

---

My perception of this thread is that if an image, regardless of size, is of proper illumination, focus, color temp, and without frames lines showing, then it should be termed Imax.

If an image is 8 -10 footlamberts, focus skewed to one side, off-color, and with the cone of one speaker blown out, it would be a movie theater.

What Imax seems to be saying is that only they have trained projectionists and tuned hardware.

---

quote:

---

Guest Services: Well sir, you watched the whole movie, you could have come out and we could have given you tickets to a different one

---

This one here is the all-time classic: He bitches about the screen size to CS, but the turd still watched the entire movie.

It's like buying a new car, drive it til it has a 100k miles on it, then returns it back to the dealer that he didn't like it and wants his money back..or a better car.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 05-15-2009, 02:29 PM:
 
I did quite a bit of research, digging through old press releases, mining the IMAX site for real information (very little to be found there), and wading through the post by Aziz Ansari and the plethora of blog posts that it spawned, all in order to come up with a coherent article that I could write on the subject of small IMAX screens, digital IMAX, etc.

I came away with more apathy for commercial movies shown on IMAX screens than when I started, if that's possible. I also came away with the realization that, for all the fuss that is happening right now, in another week it'll be business as usual.

The IMAX logo on a show does very little to tell you what you're going to get when seeing a movie, except maybe that you know you'll be paying extra for the pleasure.

The maximum IMAX size is 117'x96' (the Sydney Australia install), but the typical size is around 72'x53'. This was confirmed by the calls and E-Mails I made to some IMAX theaters. I don't know what the screen size of the AMC Burbank IMAX is, but it must be smaller than the MPX installation in Fitchburg, Wisconsin, which is 70'x50'.

So, that blurs any distinction that could be made between IMAX and IMAX MPX theaters based solely on screen size. The example used in the lfexaminer.com article that everyone is referencing is horribly small at 58'x28' and I can see why some people would be disappointed that didn't know what they would be getting.

One thing I couldn't find was a max screen size for IMAX Digital, does anyone have that information?
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-15-2009, 03:06 PM:
 

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

with the realization that, for all the fuss that is happening right now, in another week it'll be business as usual.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

The last Imax we went to was in West Yellowstone, MT. Nice theatre, but the dirt and scuff marks "moving sideways" in the picture drove me nuts.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Yet, AMC, knowing of getting bombarded with an occasional disturbance like this, they should have just gave him what he wants and get him out the door as quickly as possible without gathering any attention from the public and worst, the media.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

You still want to see the movie and being offered tickets for another movie or for another show-time really is just as disappointing as what you're complaining about.

---

What do you mean by this? It's just as disappointing to complain about presentation as it is to get offered a free pass? I'm confused.
 

---

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 05-17-2009, 08:57 PM:
 
My thoughts on first walking into the auditorium were the same as the guy who complained. It is quite small compared to the other proper IMAX theatres.
One thing is that the screen appears to have more height than the normal screens but the screen width is nothing to get excited about. Also if the film is scope the image appears letterboxed as it does at home on your
I saw Star Trek and the first thing to hit the screen was that IMAX countdown that boasts all the technical details (btw at the end of this countdown appears the words "THINK BIG", so IMAX digital IS a large format
With the trailer for Night at the Museum 2 i noticed what appears as the saturation/colour been cranked a little too far with things appearing a little warmer than they should. Sound was loud compared to regular screens but the high frequencies were way out of control causing quite a headache. With a proper EQ the level could have been louder. The feature had the same problem with colour but wasn't too bad.
At the end of it I can say that for me it felt like I was watching a large Plasma screen or the like. Quite different to Bladerunner which I saw in 2k (projected via Sony 4k projector) which had more deatil but the IMAX digital had more depth to the image.

has anyone made a comparison with IMAX digital vs. 2k by viewing the same film?

Normal tickets here cost around $16 but IMAX digital is $22.
At least the image was bright and in focus and you could make out the dialog.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-17-2009, 11:39 PM:
 
Yeah, but $22 would go a long way toward buying a copy of the Blu-ray version.
 

---

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 05-18-2009, 12:03 AM:
 
Exactly and every day Blu-Ray discs are getting just that little bit cheaper and standard DVDs are like rock bottom if you wait just a little while after their intial release.
It's a shame that many 35mm prints are not printed at optimal quality because with good projection film has something that digital could never emulate no matter how good digital gets. But digital is where its all heading. I'm waiting for more screens here to become 2k with normal movies ( I hate current 3D movies) and then compare those to the IMAX digital.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-18-2009, 09:20 AM:
 
I can't help but wonder if some 35mm print runs are deliberately goofed up just to make d-cinema look better. More likely film printing labs like Technicolor are placing a lot more of their resources into virtual print distribution and not spending much on improving or even maintaining film printing setups.

35mm film projection, even done right, is already working at a disadvantage with digtal cinema since nearly all movie releases end up with a 2K digital intermediate as a finished product. The 35mm print isn't going to show anymore detail than the 2K d-cinema version. In fact, the 35mm prints may show even less detail due to generational loss in the print making process. The only area where 35mm could possibly show some advantage over 2K projection is if the movie was rendered with a 4K DI. But that advantage is only going to be there if the film prints were well made.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-18-2009, 11:57 AM:
 
Question -- will IMAX leave the 15/70 installations that are in non-theatrical venues like museums, science parks and theme parks which I assume have been the bulk of their original theatres, at least until they realized in recent years that in order to stay alive they would have to be able to present Hollywood narrative (hopefully blockbuster) films rather than just the 40 minute documentaries. Or are they pulling the plug on ALL 15/70 installations?

Seems unlikely that non-theatrical venues like museums are going to want to run commercial Hollywood movies. So will IMAX let them continue to rotate their existing 15/70 libraries (they keep these prints in-house, do they not?), until such time as the prints just become unusable? In other words are they pulling out their film projectors only the commercial theatrical movie houses and leaving the film-based systems in the non-theatrical venues that still have the prints and still could benefit from running "Classic" IMAX?

And then the obvious question follows -- what are they going to do with all the 15/70 projectors that they pull from the commercial theatre booths?

Last question: quite a number of IMAX productions in the latter years were produced or at least financed by independent production companies. Suppose an independent production company wanted to produce a new Real-IMAX film, perhaps just to show in the exisiting IMAX film venues. Is that a possibility -- new IMAX productions -- or is IMAX simply stopping all film-based operations both in production and exhibition?
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 05-19-2009, 10:17 PM:
 

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

This one here is the all-time classic: He bitches about the screen size to CS, but the turd still watched the entire movie.

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

Suppose an independent production company wanted to produce a new Real-IMAX film, perhaps just to show in the exisiting IMAX film venues. Is that a possibility -- new IMAX productions -- or is IMAX simply stopping all film-based operations both in production and exhibition?

---

quote: Mark G's article in the now-closed Imax thread in the LF forum

---

ignored the concerns of their existing theater client
base

---

quote: Mark Lensenmayer

---

Remember that IMAX uses large rear corner speakers instead of smaller side surrounds.

---

So did AMC's SHITS sound system, but that didn't make that sound acceptable by any means.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-21-2009, 10:54 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

So can someone tell me what makes IMAX sound so much better than real cinema?

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

So can someone tell me what makes IMAX sound so much better than real cinema? I've been impressed by cinema sound before, but I'll be damned if I can even remember anything about the way the many IMAX movies I've seen sounded. Must not have been good enough to leave a lasting impression.

---

I've never been all that impressed by IMAX sound. I've been to both the MPX systems and the full-size dome systems running educational stuff. IMAX advertises as handling up to 15,000 watts of sound, according to the film snipe they run before everything that's supposed to impress the masses. The "UltraScreens" at my location can handle up to 24,000 watts, and you can feel the hairs on your head moving when the right explosion hits in a film. We don't need to advertise our wattage, you can feel it. IMAX sound isn't all it's cracked up to be IMO.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-22-2009, 04:26 PM:
 
Does anyone recall the details of The Rolling Stones At the Max
when the Stones themselves were unhappy with the IMAX sound system?
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-22-2009, 05:23 PM:
 
I saw the Stones in the Munich IMAX (the Euro premiere.). Much higher power than regular IMAX and all JBL speakers to boot! Much louder & cleaner than other IMAX that I've heard. Louis
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 05-22-2009, 07:45 PM:
 
People are catching wise to IMAX MPX/ Digital...

But only 2% of people, according to IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118004103.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&nid=2562

quote:

---

Imax's slogan used to be "Think big," but now some of its customers complain they're being told to read the fine print.
The largescreen cinema exhib, which is usually busy reporting increasingly higher percentages of theatrical gross coming from Imax screens, finds itself doing damage control following a rare moviegoers' revolt.

In the midst of an expansion that has made Imax an important premium venue -- in the first two weeks of "Star Trek," it claimed more than $22 million in gross on less than 2% of screens -- the company that built its reputation as the ultimate way to see a movie is being accused of failing to deliver on its own promises.

The Toronto-based company was called out first by no less than Roger Ebert and then by bloggers for compromising quality in its expansion. Actor-comedian Aziz Ansari ranted about the topic; LF Examiner, an online trade publication for the large-format exhibition industry, accused Imax flat-out of lying. A website, Liemax.com, has sprung up to identify which screens are "real Imax" and which are "fake Imax."

Suddenly the company is having to justify the $5 premium on Imax tickets to customers who see the new smaller screens and say, "That's not Imax."

That has created a PR headache for Imax execs, who were caught offguard by the issue. Imax CEO Rich Gelfond says their advance market research said only 2% of customers felt the new Imax screens weren't a comparable experience to the old.

"To some degree this is a product of our success," Gelfond tells Variety, "because as we attract more customers that other 2% is more and more people.

"We are going to do something (about the complaints). We hear the people."

But as yet he isn't sure what. He says they're not yet sure what portion of their customers are actually unhappy. They're planning a further customer survey and will decide what to do after they see the results.

In the meantime, the issue isn't likely to go away on its own.

Imax plans to expand to 400 U.S. screens by 2010, mostly by moving into preexisting multiplexes. But unlike the giant screens seen in museums and specially built commercial venues such as Universal Citywalk, the newer installations use a 1.9:1 aspect ratio instead of the 1.43:1 aspect ratio of the old Imax screens and a pair of 2K digital projectors instead of a super-high-resolution 15/70 film print, which brings the cost of Imax within reach of many more theaters.

The dispute largely comes down to different definitions of Imax. The company defines its experience with theater geometry, picture brightness, sound quality and other technical arcana, which together are an upgrade over normal theaters. The unhappy fans want large-format film projected on very tall screens -- they're still thinking big.

The Australian Imax licensee, which operates only giant screens, has complained that the company was advertising the new multiplex screens also with the Imax name, and now worries about a threatened customer boycott.

"Why are they selling it as a giant screen when it's not?" asked Mark Bretherton, CEO of Imax Sydney.

Don't look for Imax to back down on its expansion, though -- it's too important to the future of the company. If limited to the 75-foot-tall special venue screens of the past, they argue, they'd be back in the "bears, whales and seals" pic business, where the company began.

Maybe they can take a cue from Coca-Cola, and dub the old screens Imax Classic. That is, if anyone would buy New Imax.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

So can someone tell me what makes IMAX sound so much better than real cinema?

---

quote: Geoff Jones

---

But only 2% of people, according to IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond

---

quote: Ron Lacheur

---

Most of you are referring to MPX and less than perfect sound quality.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Which translates to 98% percent of the public either doesn't know any better or they're just idiots.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

How do you know? WTF is MPX? Is that 8/70 or some nonsense like that? If so, why would the sound be any different due to the smaller film area? That's like saying DTS on 70mm sounds soooo much better than DTS on 35mm. The IMAXs I've been to have all been 15/70.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Or they don't live within driving distance of an Imax. There's none of these "new" installations in existing theatres within at least 750 miles of me that I know of, except maybe in Denver (550 miles).

---

The 2% refers to saying that only 2% of people visiting the new installations find it to be less quality than the old IMAX, not saying that only 2% of people visit that type of show.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-23-2009, 01:01 PM:
 
Well, I just watched the movie critic show "Lyons & Bailes Reel Talk" with Jeffrey Lyons, a fairly well respected film critic -- I've not heard of the woman critic Bailes beside him. This is a syndicated show so I don't know what channel you might find it on but in NYC it was WCBS - Channel 2, I believe.

Anyway, it was on this morning and they did a story which they sandwiched between two film reviews. They teased it going into a commercial break with something like, "When we come back, we'll look into what dirty little secret that's going on in the new IMAX theatres." After the commercial they both whaled on what they called FAKE IMAX. The woman started off by explaining how the new IMAX installations in the multiplexes (she nor Lyons named AMC or Regal explicitly) are not the multi-story high screens that everyone has come to know what is meant when you say IMAX. Lyons chimed in saying that to charge extra for what obviously is NOT IMAX is just deceptive. He used the phrases, "FAKE IMAX" and "unethical' -- pretty strong stuff. He added that whoever made this decision in the company has made a big mistake. He also said that at the very least, the company should make it very clear the difference between the theatres with the smaller IMAX screens and those that still have the much large IMAX screens. He said the smaller ones should be called something like Mini-IMAX (his phrase). He ended the segment saying "hoisting this mini-IMAX and not distinguishing it from the largeer IMAX is a very bad bad idea." Unfortunately. they didn't bring the very significant resolution disparity between the two systems.

So I guess this Gelfond guy's idiot, lame and almost laughable spin, claiming that IMAX is NOT the large screen size (or presumably, it's also not the 15/70's ultra high image resolution either), but somehow it's good seats or some other nonsense (removing the first 4 rows?!) or perhaps the nice cup holders.....that THIS is what makes the new "IMAX Experience," has spread much farther than just that single original blog on the internet. These two commentators ripped IMAX execs a new one.

Gelfond should either reverse his stupid contention and admit what the most casual of observers, be they movie or cinema buffs or people in the industry or my very common sense aunt Betty, can see -- that if you were to put them in a 15/70 IMAX house and show them THE LAST BUFFALO, then you walk them down the hall and put them into a digital IMAX theatre and you say, "Are these two theatres the same?" Or more to the point, "Which of them do you think you should have to pay and extra $5 to see a movie?" It won't take a brain surgeon to know what the answer will be.

Come on Gelfond, the more you open your mouth trying to spin up as down and black as white, the more you sound like a HUGE ass....a BIG one...one projected on your 7 story high REAL IMAX screen.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 05-23-2009, 01:38 PM:
 
Shall we call the IMAX Experience the movie equivalent of The Girlfriend Experience?

Without Sasha Grey, of course.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 05-23-2009, 06:56 PM:
 
Mini-Max and Maxi-Max?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-23-2009, 07:51 PM:
 
How about iMAX? Y'know, like iPod and all of that other iShit?
 

---

Posted by James B Gardiner (Member # 5151) on 05-24-2009, 03:32 AM:
 
Wow, this is a hot topic.
To busy to get on here to much these days, tho I must admit I posted a while back that IMAX at 2k was a big mistake.

IMAX is nothing more then another cinema chain who tend towards bigger screens. The point of difference, once punters start talking and know the quality on screen is no better then typical digital, will hurt them considerably in my opinion.

Imax is more then experiance, its also the type of content they make and how they show it. So..

If I want Imax experience, sit in the front row and pay the usual price.

Now 4K is getting traction (a little surprised but at interest rate of 0.2% in Japan, I suppose it not hard for them (Sony) to take on the investment risk for the cinema. A good deal for cinema chains in this economic climate)

If 4K does become so wide spread over the next year or so. Where can IMAX go? They should have come out with 4K. IMAX 2K will be old hat and it is only getting started..

Pitty.

James
 

---

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 05-26-2009, 03:17 PM:
 
According to reports, IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond has now hired a Hollywood market-research firm to determine how serious an issue the "size" matter is. When asked if they might mark theatres with the screen size, he apparently said that was a possibility.

Of course, lost in all of this is the whole digital issue. I wasn't so much angered by the size of the screen, since I knew beforehand that it was small, but by the digital projection. How is that in any way IMAX?

Oh well, I'm sure the market-research will confirm for Gelfond that only the people who care are complaining.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-26-2009, 04:05 PM:
 
I don't think people will massively complain, but after a while, they'll watch an Imax or two, watch a couple of Sony 4K over at AMC, and go:

-Hmmmm, that wasn't worth the extra $5 bucks for that Imax thing we saw...

And that'll be the end of it. Eventually.

Unless Imax starts offering what they did before: a massively larger screen with a large image quality (and arguably sound) improvement over a cineplex.
 

---

Posted by Kevin Baglow (Member # 721) on 06-05-2009, 07:05 AM:
 
Hahahaha, they had it coming
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-05-2009, 04:03 PM:
 
David Nedrow said:

quote: David E. Nedrow

---

According to reports, IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond has now hired a Hollywood market-research firm to determine how serious an issue the "size" matter is. When asked if they might mark theatres with the screen size, he apparently said that was a possibility.

---

I got a general film-goers survey recently, and there were a LOT of IMAX questions on it. I had a GREAT time filling it out.
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 06-05-2009, 04:26 PM:
 
Hey Dicky, size DOES matter!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-06-2009, 12:09 AM:
 

quote: Ian Parfrey

---

Hey Dicky, size DOES matter!

---

Especially the size of the film strip being drawn through the projector!
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 06-07-2009, 03:37 PM:
 
Bobby.

Exactly
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-22-2009, 06:52 PM:
 
Frank Marshall, producer of films such as Poltergeist, Gremlins, Goonies, Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Sixth Sense, The Bourne films, and many more, made this statement about Digital Imax:

quote:

---

While attending screening of BRUNO last night, I stopped into the much hyped IMAX theater at the AMC on 42nd st. NYC. I was stunned…” … “there is nothing remotely resembling an IMAX screen or presentation, don’t spend your money for this.” … “I can’t believe they can get away with this. It’s really false advertising…”

---

quote:

---

I think it all has to do with expectations. In the past, people have made reference to the big screen because it was a simple piece of terminology you can use. But what they were really speaking to was the fact that it was an immersive experience. The analogy I could use is that if I gave you a screen that was a mile wide, but I put it far away from you, it would look small. But it's still a big, big screen. But that screen, to be big, also has to be close to the audience. It turns out that in our large theaters, the field of view in the front row seat happens to be the same as in our [smaller] digital theaters, more or less. In a typical theater we [converted], the original screen was 44 feet wide, with a field of view of 41 degrees from the center seat. We removed 4 rows of seats, we put in our proprietary screen, which was 23 percent larger, and 12 feet closer to the audience. That manifested itself as a screen area increase of over 225 percent, and an increase of field of view of 59 percent. Those are massive numbers. While some clients might get upset—and we get the odd one—the general marketplace can't get enough of IMAX. We're sold out in advance because they get it. We're providing an immersive experience, and yes, while the screen might not physically be as large, we're still filling that peripheral vision. That's really what we're about: making an experience that you forget you're looking through a window, you forget you're looking through a picture frame—you're sucked right into the experience.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

the "digital" theaters don't have the same sense of scale featured in true IMAX houses and the image quality is far lower in native resolution than footage shot on even 4/35mm film.

---

quote:

---

Edwin, your right, no one sits in them, usually. But you need the first 4 rows for sell-outs,

---

Hmmmmm....

So, if I pull out my playground & put cars in there, it would be about the same, eh?

For sure, it would be a big picture... most certainly an "immersive experience" !! (?)
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 09-23-2009, 09:15 AM:
 
How nice for IMAX to have commissioned a study to confirm what they wanted to hear.

While 6,000 people is a decent-sized sample, it's unfortunate that only 11 locations were used, and only 3 of those were the "classic" IMAX design.

Additionally, only 20% of multiplex audience members had seen a movie in both formats. That means that if the audiences were distributed equally, about 872 people out of the 6,000 surveyed (just under 15%) had experience that may have qualified them to judge the two formats.

I don't know if any such locations or even general areas exist, but I would like to see such results from someone after being given the chance to experience a movie in four ways:

• average multiplex movie screen
• super-sized movie screen (a la Marcus UltraScreen)
• multiplex IMAX screen
• classic IMAX screen

quote:

---

Adult Evening $8.25
Adult Fri/Sat after 6pm $8.75
Child (1-11) /Senior (62+) $5.75
Adult Matinee before 6pm $6.00
Early Bird 1st Matinee Showtime of any title (7 days a week). $5.00
Note: Check below for multiple listings of a movie (i.e. DLP, Digital, Regular, 3D, etc.) to find first showtime
Military (with valid ID) $7.00
Seniors Day - All Day Monday - any movie, any showtime $5.00
All Day Tuesday (holidays excluded) $5.25

XD Adult - $10.50
XD Child/Senior $8.50
XD REAL D 3D Adult - $12.50
XD REAL D 3D Child/Senior $10.00
3D Attraction - Normal Ticket Price Plus Premium $3.00

---

quote: Jonathan Althaus

---

So its ok to pay a premium for a 3D experience, but not ok to pay extra for a large-screen experience?

---

quote: Jonathan Althaus

---

So its ok to pay a premium for a 3D experience, but not ok to pay extra for a large-screen experience?

---