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...