IMAX vs. Non-IMAX.

[BluPix]

I'm thinking of seeing an IMAX presentation for the first time when Christopher Nolan's "Inception" arrives in theaters.

Not that I hadn't considered seeing films in IMAX before (like Nolan's "The Dark Knight" or, if I recall correctly, James Cameron's "Avatar"), but there was always some issue: either the showtime was sold out, or I didn't want to pay the relatively high ticket price.

But most of all was a kind of trepidation about what the experience may be like -- thinking it may be too intense. A more conventional presentation is just fine for me, especially if the theater is nice, comfortable, clean and/or one of my handful of favorites (high quality digital projection and 3D films are always welcome). I just want to have a nice experience of a good movie; I'm not really into thrill rides and don't necessarily need the film I attend to feel like one. Yet, my curiosity remains and, being in a major city in which more and more IMAX theaters have been opening in recent years, it's not too difficult to see one if one wishes to do so.

So, for those of you who have seen features in IMAX, do you prefer the IMAX format or would you prefer to stick to a conventional presentation (preferably on the largest non-IMAX screen you can find -- if even that)? For the film(s) you saw was IMAX pleasantly immersive or just too intense? Did anyone feel sick/unwell in any way during the IMAX feature?

I wish there were an IMAX film of interest to me that seemed less intense with which I could do a "test viewing" to see how well I can tolerate it, but it seems as if they're all fast-paced, intense, action vehicles. (BTW, I'm really looking forward to "Inception" no matter which format I see it in, in addition to "Salt" and "The Adjustment Bureau.")

Your comments, please...

[RiseDarthVader]

I got to IMAX Sydney to watch movies even if they don't have any scenes shot with IMAX Cameras and the entire movie has gone through IMAX's DMR process which just applies a lot of grain removal and edge enhancement because I'm sure I'm going to get a perfect projection of the movie through IMAX 70mm prints with no noticable splice jumps, perfect focus and 16-bit lossless audio compared to the worn out 35mm prints projected out of focus with Dolby Digital everywhere else. Also Inception has been shot with Anamorphic 35mm and 65mm and Vistavision so expect the action scenes to have a noticable jump in picture quality and detail that none of the 35mm prints will produce.

[CaptainYoda]

IMAX is cool some of the times. But I dont need to shell out the extra money for every movie that comes out in IMAX.

The sound is definitely louder and of course the picture is huge!

[Silverwing]

Depends on the movie, but with movies like Avatar and TDK, the movie experience just can't be beat IMO at IMAX. I had seen Iron Man 2 in IMAX for the midnight release and haven't seen it again away from IMAX to draw up any positives/negatives. It was amazing though!

[JLant19]

I enjoy quality in films. The better the quality the better I get to see what the director intended to show.

[42041]

Unless your regular theater is really bad, I don't see much reason to pay extra to see a movie not shot on imax on an imax screen. In the end you're still limited by the resolution of the (likely) 2K master, and if you want a big screen, conventional cinema screens are more than big enough to cause discomfort if you sit close enough.

My local theater has converted to 4K digital projection which is perfectly in focus and looks far better than the 35mm it replaced, there's no way a blown-up 70mm print would look better.