Since most of you are apparently
waiting to see Star Trek at home anyway, this might not affect you but recently there's been a ruckus over what constitutes "real" IMAX. Judging from the map above, the company has been very successful spreading its
IMAX Digital gospel to movie theaters across the country, but when patrons drop an extra $5 or so and don't see the gigantic field of vision-filling screen they're used to, is that really the IMAX experience? Whether you agree with IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond that the quality of digital projection, improved sound and slightly shifted viewing angle is enough to create the "wow factor" or Aziz Ansari's accusation of Liemax for the converted theaters, it's not right that it usually isn't clearly indicated which kind of setup your local theater has until you're actually inside. Check out the Google Map link to know what your local moviehouse is like, and let us know which kind of screen you've seen recent blockbusters like
The Dark Knight and
Star Trek on.
[Thanks, Ryan]
Read - AZIZ VS. IMAX ROUND 2: IMAX CEO Responds! And so do I. I challenge you to a televised debate sir!
Read - IMAX Digital vs. 70mm IMAX Google Map
posted May 16th 2009 4:53PM
I saw the Dark Knight on a true IMAX screen, and the experience was breathtaking. Especially when it switched to the super high res IMAX filmed shots. I saw Star Trek in a standard digital theater, but have wanted to make the trip to see it in IMAX (It's about an hour's drive to the nearest theater).
While I'm sure the digital IMAX is still pretty good, I doubt its as good as the original.
I saw Star Trek on Thursday at the Denver, Colorado Center which was built as an IMAX. The map shows it in question and I have my own. I was somewhat surprised at the aspect of the screen, although it was Really BIG it was still 4:3 and I think since the movie letterboxed, it was 16:9. The seating was stadium but shallow, which made the theatre small for what I was expecting. The sound. Having been the person that would tune, by ear, all the major theatres in our area, prior to the new self sampling systems, I was disappointed. It seem to be only 5.1 and the center channel was out of balance, louder, than the rest. Also it was "sharp and piercing". Also there were no "balls" or bottom end. Explosions in the real movie were a fraction of what they were/are when I play the trailers from my Mac through it's $35 Logitech 2.1 speakers, or pipe it through my 7.1 3700 Pioneer watt system. I mean things in the room move. At the IMAX it was a firecracker instead of a Warp Core Breach. The theatre sits next to a major highway and when going back to the car there was an explosion, pretty substantial one, in the direction of the highway and everyone walking with me made mention that it sound more realistic than in the movie. No Duh!. When I arrived home and turned on my 50" DLP I really felt something was missing from the theatre. Even commercials had more dynamics/"balls" and the aspect of 16:9 was more pleasant.
I too can not wait for this on Blu-Ray. I know my theatre is ready.
After reading posts at the Map Creators link where there are posts of what a true IMAX should be and I now am quite sure that the Colorado Center IMAX is a FauxMAX. Although, it does have a couple of the attributes that a RealMAX does, it was still a disappointment. I consider it a cheat. We do have an original IMAX at the Natural History Museum that was refurbished years ago to host "commercial" showings, but hasn't presented any.
You've never tuned a theatre, if so you would know that the film aspect is 2.39:1 not 16:9 and that there are no "self tuning" systems in theatres. Sorry you lose.
That said it's very easy to tell if you are seeing it in a 70mm house or Digital, if there are large ports spanning a 6' width and the screen is less than 50' wide it's digital, if there is only one large port with two lens situated one directly above the other and the screen is over 50' wide then it is 70mm.
Boo Radley, what do you know if I did or not just by you misunderstanding and relating that misunderstanding to part of the my post that it has no bearing on?! If you were to read my post and understood what was actually written, you'd have seen that I was writing about the movie aspect of FauxMax that I was just at and the "Letterboxed" picture that was not 2.39:1 (or 2.33:1 (21:9) as in Phillips new LCD) which more like 16:9 and not the "CinemaScope" aspect and theatres of many years ago. And as far as your spouting of there not being any "self tuning" (actually Self Calibrating EQ) systems in theatres, then you must live in a cave. I have several self tuning EQ's in my home that I have put in Clubs and Theatres such the somewhat outdated, but still works like a charm, Behringer Ultra-Curve Digital 24 bit DSP Mainframe 8000 that takes 3 of to accommodate 5.1 (6) channels. There are many brands and level of Self Calibrating EQ's on the market that are used in Nightclubs, Theatres, Concert Halls, Vegas Showrooms, Homes . . .
So I guess you lose in more ways than one. Have fun in your cave. Pissing Match over.
I would have lost that pissing match, except that I do tune theatres and no movie theatre worth it's salt uses self tuning systems. You can spout crazy sound specs all you want, but REAL movie theatres use sound processors made by Dolby or DTS. If you would like to do some research try looking up a CP-650, CP-500 or an XD-10p, those are the processors that theatres use. You would also know that not only is cinema scope currently used regularly it is what the Star Trek film is projected in and that it would in no way be expected to fill any IMAX screen, Digital or 70mm. What panasonic system is that exactly? I am not aware of a 3700 watt system they make, and seeing as most of the 127 cinema systems I service don't have even 2000 watts of amp power I'd be curious to see how it sounds.
That's not to say that the theatre you saw it is was not set up properly, especially the Digital IMAX, the digital house IMAX has put it's name on are a complete joke, and the owners of all the major exhibitors know it, and will be much more cautious now that Aziz has made public knowledge of the problems industry techs have known about for a year. Fortunately I don't service IMAX equipment, otherwise I would be forced to commit seppuku due to the huge levels of selling out that company has done.
Word to the wise, don't ever watch an "IMAX" film in a digital IMAX house, the projectors are only 2K resolution, which is essentially no higher than the resolution of a 1080P TV, sure there is more bandwidth and 3 chips and a prism and so-on, but the BS that is the IMAX image enhancer stinks for days. Save your pennies and see it in a normal 2K digital house, we don't charge extra for that, or make sure your IMAX is 70mm, but just remember that even the IMAX prints weren't filmed in 70MM, they have been computer "enhanced' (see also, digital Vaseline) by the IMAX corporation.
Agreeing with Boo Radley. Dolby had that EQ assist thing in the CP650, but even the Dolby engineers didn't use it. ST is listed as 2.40 Scope on the cinema hard drives.
Saw ST 4 times so far:
Christie CP2000 (?) at Framingham, MA (badly cropped image)
Barco DP100 (CP65 using USL JSD80 for DtoA) at Warwick, RI (good presentation)
Sony SRX (CP65 using Dolby DMA8+ for DtoA) at Foxboro, MA (good once the projector warmed up...uneven color for the first few minutes)
IMAX at (?) Providence Place (very poor image transfer and sound badly tuned)
Of the 4, the Barco and Sony looked and sounded the best. Although the Christie was cropped, that house has a THX certified sound system and sounded good. The IMAX was the worst. Fast action was very blurry. You could not see the creature's face in the scene on Delta Vega when JTK is chased by the monster from Cloverfield. The sound was very shrill. It was uncomfortable to listen to.
Hells-yeah. This is what I'm talking about. Let the people know where you get jipped and where you won't.
I saw IMAX 'fake' in Dallas(Dark Knight) and today in Midlothian VA(Star Trek). I don't know about that green peg in Dallas up there, I must of went to a different theater further south closer to downtown...can't remember the name.
i saw the dark knight at the imax theater and 2 times and it was awesome. i live bout a few hundred feet away from the imax theater in natick ma. its one of those real ones and not the fake ones. well worth the extra money.
I saw Star Trek on a real IMAX not a fauMAX, so unfortunately I can't help you with your question.
I should add that I intentionally made sure I saw Star Trek at a real IMAX not the fauMAX theaters that aren't anything like the real thing. Sounds like some people weren't aware there are "IMAX" theaters that aren't IMAX theaters.
Personally, I couldn't care less. My home theater vs. crappie theater video and sound: No contest! I wait for everything to come out on blu-ray. In fact, I'd rather see both of these movies on a standard DVD at home than go to the movie theater. Theaters and drive-in's are for teenagers.
I wait for most things too...but some movies have to be seen on the big screen.
The biggest problem with waiting is if it's a movie you really want to see and wait...but then die before released on BR. You just missed a movie cause you waited.
I saw it at the Jordan's Furniture IMAX in Reading, MA...which is a real IMAX and it was awesome. The memory foam seats and butt kickers were also, a plus. That and the ticket was only $11.50.
I think people are getting ripped off if they're paying $15 and not getting what Jordan's gives.
Oh yeah, saw Dark Knight there too. I'd prefer to see every movie there, for that matter :D.
I saw it at the Empire 25 on 42nd and 8th in Manhattan, It was a retrofit IMAX and not the experience I expected not worth the extra money just a little bit bigger screen :(
I saw both Dark Knight and Star Trek in the LieMAX at Cinema De Lux (White Plains) ... it's pretty much the same as a good digital theatre. Definitely NOT the IMAX experience as they would want you to believe. Still charged an extra 4 bucks per ticket. Complete and total rip off. This is something that should be addressed by the bureau of consumer protection. It is defnitely FALSE advertisment ... it's akin to pushing a EDTV as a full 1080p HDTV ... sure the EDTV might be a little better than SDTV, but it's not what HD really is supposed to be.
Cinemagic IMAX in Saco, ME projects digitally (DLP). I just saw Star Trek on this brand new screen. While I did enjoy the picture and the sound (at least it was loud) I was not overly impressed by the image quality. It was mediocre at best. I do not know how big the screen was. I sat close enough that it filled my field of vision. But I do not know if it was official IMAX size and aspect. Please confirm.
I saw Trek in both a normal film projected cinema and a LieMAX digital cinema in Perth, Australia. The screen in the IMAX theatre *was* huge (although not like a proper IMAX one). It was my first experience of a digitally projected film and I was suitably impressed. The screen definitely did seem to encompass more of my peripheral vision than a normal cinema, but nothing like the true wrap-around IMAX jobbie. Seats and sound were better, and they didn't have 15 minutes of annoying ads before the movie, so overall I do think it was worth the extra AU$6 and I'll favour it over a traditional screen in future.
I've seen it both ways. I saw it last week at a theater with a very large digital screen, and I've seen it in IMAX today.
The regular format was better that the more squarish IMAX, but the IMAX sound was slightly better. But certainly not worth an extra $6 by any stretch of the imagination.
I would say IMAX is a scam.
I saw it a second time on IMAX and didn't get the sense I was seeing any better than the first time I saw it on a regular screen. What a waste of $20!
The IMAX here in San Diego is a 16:9 Digital. They use a 2K process, and dual projectors (I believe to increase contrast ratio). It looks and sounds great. I saw Star Trek opening night, great seats, awesome experience. Went again yesterday, but was late and sat in the 2nd row. DO NOT ever sit in the lower section! It was awful, and the pixel grid is visible.
My only issue with the 16:9 Digital IMAX is that they're charging $5.00 extra for it. That's quite a premium for what theaters should all be like.
Though one positive spin on that extra $5.00: they don't show any ads prior to the movie.
-Pie
I have only seen an IMAX many years ago in Vegas...thinking over 12 years ago..at least 10 but the screen was huge. I went to the "IMAX" at Olatha 30 amd it was not much bigger then normal movie screen. The picture was sharp not sure if sound was better... I might go see again at regular screen and compare..but don't feel it was worth an extra $4.
I saw Star Trek on the big screen both Film and Digital. The film was beautiful and the sound blew me away. Unfortunately it had LOTS of dust bunnies that were probably 6' across that I ended up focusing on instead of the film.
I also saw it in IMAX Digital, no dust bunnies possible. The sound was kind of laid back, didn't make my ears ring. Some people may like it that way. I did keep focusing on the pixel issue, the ending credits really made it clear, but any bright white shot showed the pixels off. Fortunately the rest of the film was pretty much as good looking as the film one.
Both of them suffered from no real IMAX, the eyeball filling full screen image makes you feel like you are falling into the screen. I wish I could see that. Hell, cut the edges off and let's see it full screen. Batman had occasional shots in IMAX and it was disjointed, "Woh, what happend?"
If they are going to make IMAX for commercial theaters they should make the screen bigger in that aspect ratio and call it something to differentiate it from commercial and from IMAX movies.
I saw Star Trek at the IMAX theatre in Sydney (the big eight story high screen). And while I very much enjoyed the film and have subsequently seen the movie a second time in a regular cinema, I came out of the IMAX with a bleeding headache as did my mate who came with me. The cinema was full and we unluckily were sitting four rows from the front. The action sequences were just about indiscernable and tilting my head from side-to-side to see action was not what I needed.
It did look good, and the sound was great, but I was way too close and they should not have sold tickets for a feature length film that was going to use that much of the screen!
I saw both of those movies (and several more, going back to the Matrix sequels I think) on full 90'+ screen in Nashville.
I enjoy the show on the IMAX, but find my enjoyment very tied to my seating position. If I don't get in the center near the back, it's not good. Too close and you can't see the whole screen because it's so big, off too far to the side and it's also bad.
Saw TDK in real IMAX @ Navy Pier back in February, my first IMAX experience (not including Soarin' Over California @ DCA). Loved it...
I saw TDK in Universal Citywalk IMAX LA, CA. Star Trek in the Palms Casino/Brenden Imax. Both are real IMAX screens. Seen other movies in IMAX and loved them all.
Now I intentinally saw both movies in IMAX before seeing them both again on regular screens. I mean still the biggest theatres without being dropped to smaller screens.
Both films as well as Transformers, Beowulf and others are so much better on IMAX... especially good IMAX theatres (needs to be stressed) than on a regular screen.
The best analogy I have come up with is IMAX is the Blu of regular screen is to DVD. Its just better, and not mostly for the visual which everyone knows is better, but the sound is better than any THX cert, dolby dig, DTS, etc. etc. theatre can offer.
But again, just my take... I have yet to go to a make shift IMAX, and will try one soon to see and compare the difference.
Wow I need to review what I write before I write it, forgive the spelling and poor sentence formats. Time to go to bed. In IMAX. LOL
I saw it at the Regal Mall of GA IMAX, it was the real deal. Worth the $15, if it wasn't an hour away I'd pay to see it there again.
well, i think that the imax at the colorado center is 70 mm. there are a few digital imax theatres in denver as well. i will ask the next time i am there. i saw the dark knight at the colorado center and i am positive it was 70 mm projection and not digital. i am one who believes that imax could save the theatre industry, but the digital imax experience is crappy. having a 70 mm theatre here in denver has spoiled me. i went home to texas for xmas and took my family to see the day the earth stood still in imax and was so pissed. it was a digital imax theatre at an amc and it was awful. no better then my cenicapre here at our harkins theatres. get with it imax, if i am paying $17 i want 70 mm, not faux 70 mm.
Saw The Dark Knight at IMAX Melbourne Australia which has always been advertised as the biggest screen in the world (until recently) so yeah it was unbelievable including earth shattering sound
I caught Trek in fauxMAX at the Hoffman AMC 22 in Alexandria, VA. It was OK. Two shots were blurry...yes down-right blurry. (When Pike has a heart-to-heart with Kirk in the bar and when Spock Prime had a heart-to-heart with young Spock). How can you have blurry shots with DLP?!?! Please tell me that was an artist choice or something.
I used to live in Las Vegas and would catch one or two IMAX films at the Luxor. At the time, the Luxor theater was the "largest IMAX screen in the world" (or at least they claimed that). Anyway,it was once one of IMAX's flagship locations so when I went to the AMC Hoffman my expectations were pretty low to begin with.
Other than the blurry shots and non-super-sized screen, I liked it well enough. I did think the vibrant color representation on the DLP system was a big improvement over regular film. With a color-rich film such as Trek, it really improved the experience.
At the end of the day, the quality of the story-telling trumps the technology, so for me, Trek was a win here.
I saw DK on a real IMAX screen at Universal Citywalk. I was so blown away by the experience that I went to see it again, but this time at the new "IMAX" in Simi Valley. The moment I stepped into the theater, I thought there was a mistake: the screen was SO tiny. I was so furious, especially after I noticed that the extra IMAX-specific footage at the top and the bottom of the screen was missing.
The fact that they're pawning off these smaller -- MUCH SMALLER -- screens as IMAX and still charging more for the "experience" is almost in line with fraud, particularly since the intent to mislead seems to exist. Overall, it sours me to the brand in a way that prevented me from taking the extra time and spending the extra money to see a movie I originally wanted to see on IMAX: Star Trek.
To Richard Lawler,
After reading your post, I don't think you take this very seriously and to add insult to injury, you kinda of half-assed your post. The map that you've posted is part of a blog by James Peach, http://destroyfakeimax.blogspot.com/. Although the majority of its makeup is based of individual submissions from people like myself, it is backed up with documented proof courtesy of LF Examiner. You wouldn't pay MSRP for a bootleg copy of a Blu-ray title that was just released today and is $5 cheaper at Best Buy, Amazon or Fry's, now would you? So why the hell would someone want to pay $5 extra for IMAX when it isn't in its true 15/70 format and environment?
...And where the hell is the user poll?
LOL. I think you kinda don't know what you're talking about at all.
Mr. Lawler,
Either you did not receive my request for you to prove me wrong or you have just chosen to ignore it. Let's just settle with that we agree to disagree. If you felt you were insulted, it was unintended. It's just that your May 16th post reads as if you were uninterested in the subject matter altogether before you even posted your entry.
11.50 for an IMAX? how about 17.50 in new york city- what a fuggin ripp off. unfortunately for us residents of the 'big city', the prices will continue to spiral, and we have sony takng over a majority of the (good) theaters years ago to thank for that, which immediately rose prices across the board. even our regular movie tickets are as much as 12.50- wtf.
That said, There are 2 new IMAX's- faux ones i suppose- in two thetatres here in the city- sheapshead bay in brooklyn and at the old AMC on 42nd street. they must have recently gotten certification for these because they werent there even a couple of months ago. ticket prices? 16.50 if im not mistaken. wtf. I'll check them out one time or another, but from what I've read here, I'm almost prepared to be dissapointed.
Honestly every movie ive seen in the real sony imax at 68th street lincoln square has been the shizznit. Massive, booming sound, the works. Its definitely better now that movies have IMAx specific scenes, such as the dark night- the IMAX scenes were aaaammmmmzzzziiiinnngggg, looking so much better than the regular cuts. I just missed star trek in IMAX, now that they are rolling over the engagements every two weeks for the summertime. Missed watchmen as well- but my trusty home surround is ready for that movie already...now when i get my new pioneer HD ready a/v amp...neighbors, watch out! :)