Do not see a movie in IMAX unless it was made for it.

[sega3dmm]

Originally Posted by Poya

It's especially jarring in an AMC theater since all of the normal screens are outfitted with a 4K projector, which looks far better.

But the dual 2K projectors that are used for IMAX have a superior light output and contrast than a single Sony 4K projector. There was never one IMAX 3D presentation I went to where the image was dim or had crush, while this happens on 95% of Sony 3D shows I've been to. There are moments even in 2D where Sony 4K fails. Overall, I don't recommend Sony.

Even worse, even if you find a real IMAX theater, they plan to replace their film projectors with a lousy 4K laser projector that will no doubt be highly inferior to the 70mm prints.

Lousy? While I agree 4K isn't sufficient enough for 70mm, it's far cheaper to release movies in that format. The reality is, as an exhibition format, film is dying, becoming more expensive to print, especially when it comes to IMAX. Also, a commercial audience has never seen those projectors in action so don't judge before you see.

If you are interested in 3D, the Real D experience is far better because of its newer tech instead of the outdated 3D tech of the IMAX.

True, if only RealD's polarizers didn't lose 5-10% of contrast. I hate losing the image in IMAX 3D by tilting my head.

IMAX is still stuck on the old 5.1 surround that only sounds "better" because it's louder and a lot more bass.

I don't even think IMAX has a dedicated LFE channel, I think it's all directed to a sub-bass through a low-pass filter, more like 5.0. If I recall, back in the 90's IMAX had 6.0 sound, the extra channel being for height, but I don't even know if it's being used anymore.

It's just that the IMAX's EQ is pitifull.

If you want to see a normal movie at its best, go see it on a cheaper but far better premium screen, like the AMC ETX (and the upcoming AMC Prime) or the Regal RPX. They have 4K projectors, very large screens, even larger than the smaller IMAX screens now out there, and they don't ruin the image of the picture. Some of them are even equipped with Dolby Atmos for optimum audio experience. Save your money from what IMAX has become, unless it's Interstellar, a film that will use IMAX cameras.

AMC ETX and Regal RPX share some of the same issues, like the lack of masking and sometimes poor EQ and projector misalignment.

Until IMAX impresses me with their 4K laser projector, I am done with the brand and wouldn't see an IMAX film even if it was shot with those cameras. I'm done with constantly changing aspect ratios (Star Trek Into Darkness's opening is a hilarious example of this). I'm done with inferior sound made to impress the dullest bulb in the room. I'm done with their grainy 2K projectors. I'm done with their DMR process. I'm done with seeing films shot in 15/70 but end up being in a pixelated digital intermediate (looking at you, MI4). I'm done with paying more for a sub-par experience. I'm done with the lack of surround arrays. I'm done with their fanboys who don't know any better.

I'm finished!

[Poya]

But the dual 2K projectors that are used for IMAX have a superior light output and contrast than a single Sony 4K projector. There was never one IMAX 3D presentation I went to where the image was dim or had crush, while this happens on 95% of Sony 3D shows I've been to. There are moments even in 2D where Sony 4K fails. Overall, I don't recommend Sony.

Not when you have this projector, which has a contrast of 8000:1.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-dig...uct-SRX-R515P/

[42041]

Originally Posted by Poya

Not when you have this projector, which has a contrast of 8000:1.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-dig...uct-SRX-R515P/

I doubt AMCs have the latest and greatest projectors. The ones nearby have mediocre projection quality at best.
There was a problem with some Sony projectors where the 3D lens was really difficult to put on and take off, so theaters just left it on, yielding this horrifyingly dim image.

[42041]

Originally Posted by sega3dmm

Lousy? While I agree 4K isn't sufficient enough for 70mm, it's far cheaper to release movies in that format. The reality is, as an exhibition format, film is dying, becoming more expensive to print, especially when it comes to IMAX. Also, a commercial audience has never seen those projectors in action so don't judge before you see.

"dying" is putting it kindly...
I live in a major US city and I'm not aware of a single place you can still see new movies on 35mm.

[42041]

Originally Posted by WhySoCereal

IMAX is fine and all, but my movie going group makes me see way too many movies in the format. That being said, can we get a master list of upcoming movies in IMAX and whether or not they SHOULD be seen in IMAX or not.

Christopher Nolan's next film will be shot partially in 15/70mm, and presumably printed without some low-res digital intermediate. That's the only one I know of.

As for digital IMAX, there's really no reason you "should" see anything in it (in my opinion) unless your regular screens stink.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by JavaJulien

Saw Gravity in IMAX 3D last weekend. If there was ever a movie worth the price of admission, it was that one.

Not exactly:

2009 may stand as the golden year for real 3D films. Nearly all 3D films shown in theaters that year were filmed with stereoscopic cameras or rendered from original 3D animated assets. As soon as Hollywood caught wind of the money-making potential for extra 3D sales, the studio heads scrambled for ways to convert already-filmed 2D movies into 3D. This led to a boom in 3D conversion outfits, many of them with animators working overseas in Mumbai. And so began the era of real vs. fake 3D.

I started Real or Fake 3D in 2010, at a time when about half of 3D movies coming out were natively filmed with 3D cameras, and half were converted in post-production. At the time, I heard a torrent of complaints from moviegoers about headaches or annoying 3D effects (think wrenches and fists flying out of the screen). While some demanded their money back, most moviegoers continued to line up for 3D blockbusters like Tron.

Since that time, 3D conversion technology has improved substantially. I now get emails about once a week about whether Transformers 2 or Gravity or some other converted 3D film is actually real. Inevitably, I'll look-up said movie or cross-reference the links these readers send me, and it turns out the movies are actually fake 3D, but the directors are adamant that their process is as good as the real thing.

Normally when I watch a fake 3D film, it is with a group, and I don't get to veto the decision, such as when I saw Tron, Thor and Prometheus. Nearly every other real 3D film I've seen, I saw by myself or with just one or two other friends. Movies like Hugo and Cave of Forgotten Dreams were meant to be seen in 3D because the directors took the pain-staking effort to film them in 3D. Yes, the cameras are much more expensive. Yes, it takes a lot of time and effort to convert your whole production pipeline into 3D. But this is what makes the results of a well-done native 3D film all the more sweeter.

When it came time to watch Gravity, I looked up the movie on my own website, remembered that I had put it in the fake column, and so I made sure to buy the 2D movie tickets. The movie was awesome, and I immediately felt pangs of regrets seeing it in 2D. When Sandra Bullock's character is stuck to a retracting arm of the shuttle, and she is spun around, I really wanted to feel like I was in free-fall to Earth.

The next day, when I told a friend that I had seen Gravity, his first question was, "Did you see it in 3D?" Then a few days later, I got a tweet from another reader trying to correct Gravity's entry on Real or Fake 3D. He sent me a link to a series of behind-the-scenes clips, and I admit I was impressed. I could see how they would extrude the geometry and re-shape Sandra Bullock's body for 3D, and for a few days, I thought to myself, "What if I have it all wrong? What if conversions are as good as the real thing?"

Maybe conversions were in fact like the re-coloring of black-and-white movies. Without knowing that classics such as It's a Wonderful Life were re-colored, it may not bother you the first few times you see it. Now that I know they were re-colored, it's hard not to see the cheeks of James Stewart as an overly fluorescent pink, or his various co-stars' blond hair as unnecessarily platinum. But for most people it's fine. Maybe it's the same with 3D conversion. In the behind-the-scenes for Gravity, the artist moves these gray extruded 3D shapes representing the depth map inside the space capsule, and it doesn't look like too much information is lost when they simulate 3D. Maybe stereoscopic 3D isn't that crucial. As Anthony Lane of the New Yorker says, movies are already in 3D.

So I decided to watch Gravity again, this time in 3D, to see if it was any better. I stepped into an empty theater during a matinee showing, and prepared to leave with a blog post announcing my apostasy. I could imagine the headline, "Author of Real or Fake 3D Says 3D Conversions Are As Good As The Real Thing." Within that fantasy was a proud assertion of my honesty. Here I was, the purveyor of a site that makes money delineating real vs. fake 3D, announcing that the distinction no longer matters.

After having now seen Gravity in both 3D and 2D, my verdict is that real 3D still matters. The scenes that I expected to blow my mind didn't. I rarely felt a sense of free-fall, and it didn't seem at all like the wild ride I had when watching Avatar. The problem is that 3D conversions have to mute many of their effects lest the illusion is shattered or they induce headaches. The result is that converted 3D films are a little flat. Oftentimes they veer towards just being pop-up books with a few digital 3D visual effects, like flying wrenches bounding into your face. When Sandra Bullock's character swings around miles above Earth, I expected to feel the same way that I felt in Avatar when Jake jumps off a cliff while learning how to fly. But I didn't.

To truly get that immersive feel, to get that sense that all your surroundings have disappeared and you are a living breathing member of the set you are watching, the movie has to be shot natively in 3D. Gravity is probably the best converted 3D film, but even the best 3D converted film can't compete with the real thing. Will this change a few years from now? Perhaps. Until that time though, my site will still be relevant.

http://phildhingra.com/2013/11/why-r...l-matters.html

[solarrdadd]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

I'll see whatever I want to in whatever theatre and format that I want to. Don't tell me to not do something!

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

what they said.

[Saccharin]

Saw a few mist out on some that I really should have seen like GRAVITY and
PROMETHEUS. The reason is the distance to watch a IMAX for me, because there is none close by. When there was one I would go more often now I choose very carefully which film I am going to see.

[SilentDawn]

I've only seen Gravity and Pacific Rim in IMAX:

Gravity didn't do much for me on the massive screen, thought my local Ultra-screen gave me the same experience.

Pacific Rim on the other hand, was incredible. The scale of the battles were astounding, with the music pounding through the speakers; gave a truly exhilarating experience.

[krazeyeyez]

I feel bad for you guys. I live close to the henry Ford museum and their imax experience is incredible. The last two years I lived in Austin which had the Bob bullock theater.. equally amazing. Now I have wandered into an AMC presentation a number of times and it saddens me its allowed to carry the name, but a true imax experience is just that... an experience. We just had a number of theaters retrofitted with both dbox and atmos close to me and I have yet to check them out. So I can't comment on the comparison their but imax hands down Is a great experience and far better then my local "normal theaters".

[Quinni]

I've only seen Tron: Legacy and Transformers: Dark of the Moon in IMAX 3D. I had fun with both, though I didn't notice any glaring problems.

[SilentDawn]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

I feel bad for you guys. I live close to the henry Ford museum and their imax experience is incredible. The last two years I lived in Austin which had the Bob bullock theater.. equally amazing. Now I have wandered into an AMC presentation a number of times and it saddens me its allowed to carry the name, but a true imax experience is just that... an experience. We just had a number of theaters retrofitted with both dbox and atmos close to me and I have yet to check them out. So I can't comment on the comparison their but imax hands down Is a great experience and far better then my local "normal theaters".

I have to drive two hours one way to my nearest IMAX theater; its been worth it for the two times I have been there.

Museums almost always have the best IMAX experience anyways, they are built for the educational films that need the massive screen.

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by Poya

I'm not a hater. I'm just stating the facts that films that weren't made for IMAX ago under a process that make them look bad. Watching them in another premium format is far better because there isn't any of the digital processing.

Originally Posted by Quinni

I've only seen Tron: Legacy and Transformers: Dark of the Moon in IMAX 3D. I had fun with both, though I didn't notice any glaring problems.

There are no problems, the OP is just a hater. I have seen 70mm IMAX and it is different but digital to me is still better than the other theaters whch are hit and miss.

I like to have a good time at the movies and IMAX does that for me.

[AmrlKJaneway]

I want my IMAX back. Just the one with the documentaries, and the 15/70. Just real IMAX. But it's gone, and the closest one is in Sydney. 10 hours drive...

If it was still there, I would take the kids all the time.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by MrsMiniver

There are no problems, the OP is just a hater. I have seen 70mm IMAX and it is different but digital to me is still better than the other theaters whch are hit and miss.

I like to have a good time at the movies and IMAX does that for me.

Agreed - perhaps the OP just has a sh*tty local IMAX? Because I've seen plenty of 15/70 films (whether they we 'made' for IMAX or not - The Hobbit, for example) and digital IMAX prints (again, both filmed and not filmed in IMAX) and I can't think of one that I've had a problem with.

I'm lukcy enough in that I can get in free to both my local arthouse and a local multiplex so I get to see pretty much anything for free, and yet I'm still pay £15-20 to go and see certain films in IMAX because the experience is worth it.

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Agreed - perhaps the OP just has a sh*tty local IMAX? Because I've seen plenty of 15/70 films (whether they we 'made' for IMAX or not - The Hobbit, for example) and digital IMAX prints (again, both filmed and not filmed in IMAX) and I can't think of one that I've had a problem with.

See, that's just it. The difference between an IMAX Digital venue and some other chain theater is that you know what you are getting when you watch a movie with IMAX Digital.

The OP is not aware that IMAX digital is 22fl on the screen while a standard single projection system is 16fl if they are lucky. Furthermore, none IMAX digital 3D is as low as 4fl on the screen, that is very dim.

Also, non IMAX venues do not always remove the RealD 3D apparatus from the front of the projectors for non 3D movies. The OP does not know this and the average person has no guarantee that the RealD unit has been removed.

I also like the speakers that are used for surrounds at IMAX, they are much better than a traditional theatre.

So overall, I would rather have dual projectors than a single projector, I would also rather know what I am getting when I decide to go to an IMAX movie. Sure, IMAX Digital is not the same as 70MM, but I like to have a good time when I go to the movies and IMAX does that for me.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Poya

Unless it's a film like Interstellar, do not watch any film, shot digitally or on film, in IMAX. Here's why:

1. If you go to your nearest IMAX theater, it's probably not a real IMAX but instead one of the smaller, digital ones. They use two 2K projectors overlapping each other to "improve" the experience, but it's no different than your average 2K presentation. It's especially jarring in an AMC theater since all of the normal screens are outfitted with a 4K projector, which looks far better. Even worse, even if you find a real IMAX theater, they plan to replace their film projectors with a lousy 4K laser projector that will no doubt be highly inferior to the 70mm prints. If you are interested in 3D, the Real D experience is far better because of its newer tech instead of the outdated 3D tech of the IMAX.

2. Even if you are lucky to find a real IMAX theater, with a 15/70mm projector and a 7 story screen, it is pointless because in order for a film not made for IMAX to be presented on the screen, they go through a digital noise reduction process that removes the grain and detail and robs the picture of its natural colors, and that's not to mention the haloing and other problems. They do this in order to make it "as good as" a film actually shot in IMAX. It's a lie and an embarrassment to the company.

3. A lot of films nowadays are now mixed to have 7.1 surround sound instead of the typical 5.1 surround sound. There are theaters out there that can play those films with that kind of sound mix. There even are other theaters out there equipped with a state-of-the-art Dolby Atmos feature, meaning 64 channels of sound. Some films are made specifically for the sound format and it sounds incredible. IMAX is still stuck on the old 5.1 surround that only sounds "better" because it's louder and a lot more bass.

If you want to see a normal movie at its best, go see it on a cheaper but far better premium screen, like the AMC ETX (and the upcoming AMC Prime) or the Regal RPX. They have 4K projectors, very large screens, even larger than the smaller IMAX screens now out there, and they don't ruin the image of the picture. Some of them are even equipped with Dolby Atmos for optimum audio experience. Save your money from what IMAX has become, unless it's Interstellar, a film that will use IMAX cameras.

While I agree with some of your points, I saw "Gravity" in a theatre that was equipped for 15/70, but was presenting "Gravity" digitally. I have to admit that the presentation was fantastic. Would it have been better in 15/70? Can't answer that since I have no way of comparing. The sound mix was also fantastic. Was the Atmos mix better? Don't know.

This theatre has a screen far larger than the RPX and ETX. Having said that, if I had choice between digital IMAX and RPX or ETX with Dolby Atmos, I'd go for the Atmos presentation.

In NYC theatres, RPX and ETX are not necessarily less expensive than IMAX.

The fact is that the age of film presentation is over. Get over it. Even the museums with IMAX are switching to digital - I happened to notice that the Museum of Natural History has a new IMAX film that's digitally presented. And it wasn't always as great as we claim to remember. Even at the peak of 70mm, there were only 3-4 really decent theaters in Manhattan that I would go to. And if you didn't get to see a film in the first two weeks after opening, either the print looked like crap or the mag heads were worn out (or out of azimuth).

In September, 2012, I saw a 70mm print of "The Master" at the Ziegfeld in New York and the print looked like absolute crap - dirt all over it and the DTS sound track was no great shakes. I saw a revival of "Lord Jim" in 70mm at the Walter Reade theatre in NYC and it also wasn't a great experience - the screen was far too small and the sound was very thin (although that film was actually only 3-track) even though that's considered to be a great theatre. A friend of mine saw a revival of "It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World" there in 70mm the same day and he said that was crap also.

As far as 5.1 and 7.1 is concerned, through 2012, it was mostly animated films that were mixed for 7.1, although the advent of Dolby Atmos might change this as they can downmix the Atmos mix to a 7.1. For 2013, I count 29 films available in Dolby 7.1. But just because a film is released in 7.1, doesn't mean they really make a lot of use of those channels. I used to be a consultant for one of the major film tech companies and when I was sent to preview films, I could never tell whether either Dolby EX (or DTS ES) or a 7.1 presentation was used as opposed to a 5.1 mix.

While Dolby Atmos is capable of sending 64 channels of sound at a time, the theaters themselves are not necessarily 64 channels. Even the Dolby Screening Room doesn't have 64 channels. That's the whole point of Atmos - the Atmos processor sends the signal (for the audio mixed via the object model) to the closest speaker(s) to where the mixer decided the sound should be in 3D space. And until recently, those object sounds could only go to one speaker at a time, but Dolby recently updated the software so that they could go to multiple speakers. I'd say the typical installation is more like 30 speaker channels. But even then, those channels are not channels in the sense of traditional channels. Generally, the mixers mix the 5.1 or 7.1 first, then use the object model to place sounds in space. To date, this has mostly been sweetening.

Dolby has no minimum requirements in terms of the number of channels that an Atmos theatre must support. As long as they use the latest Dolby processor and change the surrounds so that there's individual feeds to each speaker, a 5.1 theatre can be an Atmos theatre. They don't even have to install the overhead speakers or the surround subwoofers, even though it's highly recommended.

Over the next year, we'll begin to hear the first films in which Atmos is the primary mix and then they'll downmix to 5.1 or 7.1. Those mixes should be more interesting.

So after seeing "Gravity", I would indeed attend an IMAX theatre again, even if it's a Lie-Max theatre.

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

This theatre has a screen far larger than the RPX and ETX. Having said that, if I had choice between digital IMAX and RPX or ETX with Dolby Atmos, I'd go for the Atmos presentation.

While I respect your opinion, would you still want to watch the movie in Atmos knowing that the presentation is dimmer on screen (single projector) or that the cinema chain does not remove the RealD unit (very common to leave it on) for a 2D presentation?

The problem with standard theaters is that you have no idea what you are getting, you are rolling the dice...

With IMAX Digital, you usually know what you are getting going in.

[42041]

Originally Posted by MrsMiniver

With IMAX Digital, you usually know what you are getting going in.

A merely above-average technical presentation.
It can be a crapshoot, but I've seen single-screen projectors that are more than competitive with IMAX brightness. If you have a theater that takes care to maintain high projection quality, digital IMAX becomes redundant at best.

[BaerGriggs]

Originally Posted by MrsMiniver

While I respect your opinion, would you still want to watch the movie in Atmos knowing that the presentation is dimmer on screen (single projector) or that the cinema chain does not remove the RealD unit (very common to leave it on) for a 2D presentation?

The problem with standard theaters is that you have no idea what you are getting, you are rolling the dice...

With IMAX Digital, you usually know what you are getting going in.

In my opinion and from viewings at local IMAX's, I still prefer the single 4K projector over the Digital IMAX presentation. I know some are arguing that people simply aren't watching movies at the right IMAX's, but if you're basing your argument on the handful of theaters in the world that still actually do it right I don't see how you can convince the majority of moviegoers. I don't live anywhere near the reference-quality IMAX screens so I can't speak for those personally (I saw The Dark Knight Rises in 70mm but that's the only non-digital IMAX movie I've seen), but I will say that the new AMC Prime (retrofit of ETX screens) format is by far the best cinematic experience I've ever had. Gigantic screen with a 4K projector, 48 separate JBL surround speakers (some with 12 drivers) configured for Dolby Atmos, and Guitammer seat transducers. Absolutely blew away any IMAX movie I've seen.

And I don't really know how you can say that you always know what you're getting when you see an IMAX screen. It was very confusing when The Dark Knight Rises came out to actually find a 70mm projector still in use for IMAX theaters..you had to resort to user-generated maps and lists that could very easily go out of date.

tldr; I'll take premium format theaters with Dolby Atmos over IMAX any day of the week.