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

[JavaJulien]

Originally Posted by LegacyCosts

I saw Pacific Rim 3d "IMAX" at AMC. The picture was stellar but the sound was ear piercingly loud and just annoying. IMAX at AMC is not worth the price upgrade.

I agree, the picture quality was great but the sound was overbearing.

[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.

[ultlife2013]

Regarding the loudness of IMAX screenings. I think that where you sit is very important to avoid those kind of issues.

[DoubleDownAgain]

Never had a bad IMAX experience, but only went to a handful.

[Scorpion Soldier]

Originally Posted by DoubleDownAgain

Never had a bad IMAX experience.

Pretty much same thing here. Only bad experience I've had was The Lone Ranger which had a pretty terrible dmr job in my opinion.

[duggie walker]

I completely agree with the second point. In London, the BFI have a pretty good IMAX screen but I'm sick of these horrible up-converts and all the artificial sharpening and attendant noise. At worst, it's like watching something akin to a projected dvd. I'm over the idea that IMAX is, in itself, a better way to watch movies.

Unfortunately, the IMAX brand seems to have really hooked itself into the public consciousness. We're steadily losing the big, regular cinemas as they're converted to multiplexes and Liemax venues. The only cinema equipped with Dolby Atmos here - the Empire, a big, beautiful art-deco auditorium - is currently undergoing the latter transformation, which means there's nowhere in London with Atmos capability. To my great regret, I've yet to see a film in that format.

I really think that very soon, IMAX/LIEMAX is going to be the only way of seeing a theatrical release on an impressively-sized screen and we'll just have to swallow the horrible DMR process.

[Todd Tomorrow]

I saw Super 8 at an IMAX and it was clear that it was never meant to be screened at that size. It didn't look very sharp and looked a little like I when I watch a DVD on my projector instead of a Blu-ray. Bigger isn't always better.

[BD3Dfan]

Originally Posted by duggie walker

...The only cinema equipped with Dolby Atmos here - the Empire, a big, beautiful art-deco auditorium - is currently undergoing the latter transformation, which means there's nowhere in London with Atmos capability. To my great regret, I've yet to see a film in that format...

Actually, Empire is also adding an Impact screen which'll include Dolby Atmos. Unfortunately, if their building track record is anything to be said (No new Ealing cinema, scaled back revamp in Newcastle from Impact and new screens to just the studio screens and the foyer), it'll be a long time before Atmos returns, leaving IMAX there.

TBH, IMAX seems to be desperately holding on to its audience. I'm waiting for a film that was actually shot with IMAX cameras to get a Digital-Only release, nullifying the point of the whole IMAX frame. They know they're going away from what they were and are trying to cling onto its audience. I've seen what cinema-brand large screens can do, and Atmos is a lot better than IMAX's sound system. As long as the audience sees IMAX and automatically thinks it's better, IMAX will continue to degenerate. Think of it like Apple. We're now in the 'Tim Cook' era, not the 'Steve Jobs' era.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by ultlife2013

Regarding the loudness of IMAX screenings. I think that where you sit is very important to avoid those kind of issues.

I sit in the middle.

[ultlife2013]

Originally Posted by Poya

I sit in the middle.

Jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

[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.

[sega3dmm]

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/

This is actually the only Sony projector I don't mind. Though, I have never seen a 3D movie on one of those. I was talking about something more in the line of the 320s.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by sega3dmm

This is actually the only Sony projector I don't mind. Though, I have never seen a 3D movie on one of those. I was talking about something more in the line of the 320s.

Those have the same contrast level as the IMAX laser projectors.

[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.

[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.