Why the Star Trek IMAX isn’t real IMAX

[scrumptious]

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/05/11...snt-real-imax/

[tlmaclennan]

Yea, niether was Dark Knight...at least most of it.

[Beast]

Yeah. I don't see what the problem is. Other than another thing to complain about.

[tlmaclennan]

He is trying to meet the quota of 10 separate threads per movie...

[scrumptious]

Originally Posted by Beast

Yeah. I don't see what the problem is. Other than another thing to complain about.

The problem is that theaters should not advertise it as IMAX if it isn't real IMAX. The only way you can find out before going is by looking it up on the web.

Maybe you feel consumers should just sit back and that dishonest advertising should be an acceptable part of capitalism. Well, you're wrong

[scrumptious]

Originally Posted by tlmaclennan

He is trying to meet the quota of 10 separate threads per movie...

huh? This is the 1st Star Trek thread that I remember starting. What are you talking about?

[Beast]

There's no dishonest advertising. You're blowing it out of proportion.

[Monkey]

It's not really false adverstising. It's like tellin my friends come watch this DVD on my 60" HDTV and surround setup.. They know it isn't HD but it is still better than watching on their 25" SD CRT.

[tlmaclennan]

Originally Posted by scrumptious

The problem is that theaters should not advertise it as IMAX if it isn't real IMAX. The only way you can find out before going is by looking it up on the web.

Maybe you feel consumers should just sit back and that dishonest advertising should be an acceptable part of capitalism. Well, you're wrong

It was never advertised as being IMAX footage, just presented on the IMAX screen. I don't see what there is to complain about. IMAX theaters are better than regular ones so why not take advantage of it, even if the footage isn't shot with an IMAX camera.

Originally Posted by scrumptious

huh? This is the 1st Star Trek thread that I remember starting. What are you talking about?

I'm not saying you have started another Trek thread, just that there are so many separate threads on the same movie. Can't we just have ONE mega thread for each movie instead?

[Monkey]

Sure I'd love if they had a version shot at 48fps, higher quality film, etc like some IMax movies.. but they don't.

[scrumptious]

Originally Posted by tlmaclennan

It was never advertised as being IMAX footage, just presented on the IMAX screen. I don't see what there is to complain about. IMAX theaters are better than regular ones so why not take advantage of it, even if the footage isn't shot with an IMAX camera.

At my local IMAX theater it is advertised as the "IMAX experience." IMAX didn't always do this dishonest stuff. It used to be that films that were really IMAX were labelled differently from films that used upconversion. But now both real IMAX films and fake IMAX films often get labelled the same way.

The point is not that the experience is not better. The point is that they are misleading customers. Wikipedia points this out too.

I'm not saying you have started another Trek thread, just that there are so many separate threads on the same movie. Can't we just have ONE mega thread for each movie instead?

Well the only mega thread I remember got locked (the one that said "lol the trekkies are boycotting..."). I noticed two threads ... one didn't fit my topic and the other was the Star Trek review thread ... and I thought if I posted there, it might be off topic and distract from the reviews.

[tlmaclennan]

I know and that's not really your fault. In the begining there should have been just one thread.

And there are many films that have been in IMAX that were not true IMAX. Harry Potter 5, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Matrix sequels, Spiderman 3, etc. So why complain about just Star Trek?

[scrumptious]

Here's just part of the dishonesty IMAX engages in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#Content

"Many large format film industry professionals point out, however, that DMR blowups are not comparable to films created directly in the 70 mm 15 perf IMAX format. They note that the decline of Cinerama coincided roughly with the supersession of the original process with a simplified, reduced cost, technically inferior version, and view DMR with alarm. IMAX originally reserved the phrase "the IMAX experience" for true 70 mm productions, but now allows its use on DMR productions as well."

So many large format film professionals view this issue with "alarm." And note how you can't tell from the way it is advertised anymore whereas originally you could.

[Beast]

As someone else once said, Wikipedia isn't an accurate source.

It is an IMAX experience, the film is still going to look amazing. It's just not filmed in IMAX.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by scrumptious

Here's just part of the dishonesty IMAX engages in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#Content

"Many large format film industry professionals point out, however, that DMR blowups are not comparable to films created directly in the 70 mm 15 perf IMAX format. They note that the decline of Cinerama coincided roughly with the supersession of the original process with a simplified, reduced cost, technically inferior version, and view DMR with alarm. IMAX originally reserved the phrase "the IMAX experience" for true 70 mm productions, but now allows its use on DMR productions as well."

So many large format film professionals view this issue with "alarm." And note how you can't tell from the way it is advertised anymore whereas originally you could.

Anyone with half a brain is going to know that Star Trek wasn't filmed in IMAX.

[scrumptious]

Originally Posted by tlmaclennan

I know and that's not really your fault. In the begining there should have been just one thread.

And there are many films that have been in IMAX that were not true IMAX. Harry Potter 5, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Matrix sequels, Spiderman 3, etc. So why complain about just Star Trek?

Dark Knight was in true IMAX and people knew beforehnad that only part of it was true IMAX since the studio advertised that fact, ... the IMAX parts would change in aspect ratio.

As for the other films, I don't care whether they were in true IMAX or not. What I care about is that they not be labeled as "IMAX experience" by IMAX. As wikipedia proves, IMAX use to reserve that label for only true IMAX. Now they are confusing consumers -- the only reason why they changed that I can think of is to make more money. I only joined in February ... and I only found out about this (IMAX issue) like less than a year ago.

[tlmaclennan]

I think they are only misleading you, since I think you are the only one to know the difference between The IMAX experience and the unconverted IMAX films. Everyone else knows that if a film is in IMAX it is just that film presented on the big screen and nothing more. You are putting words in their mouth and assuming that they are trying to screw people over. Maybe now they just label everything as The IMAX Experience because that's their tagline, nothing more.

[scrumptious]

Originally Posted by Beast

Anyone with half a brain is going to know that Star Trek wasn't filmed in IMAX.

Um how? Before seeing it, how would you know? The true IMAX and fake IMAX are labelled with the same "IMAX experience" label. Originally only true IMAX was labelled that way. Why did IMAX change? My theory: to make money. What's yours? To be more accurate? To confuse people with less than half a brain like me?

Most people don't even know that there's real IMAX and fake IMAX. I didn't until less than a year ago.

And first you question wikipedia's accuracy and then you cite it? lol

[D1-2005]

Originally Posted by Beast

As someone else once said, Wikipedia isn't an accurate source.

It is an IMAX experience, the film is still going to look amazing. It's just not filmed in IMAX.

Are there even even any full length movies shot entirely in IMAX anyway?
I thought The Dark Knight was the first actual non documentary that was at least partially filmed in IMAX.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by scrumptious

Dark Knight was in true IMAX and people knew beforehnad that only part of it was true IMAX since the studio advertised that fact, ... the IMAX parts would change in aspect ratio.

As for the other films, I don't care whether they were in true IMAX or not. What I care about is that they not be labeled as "IMAX experience" by IMAX. As wikipedia proves, IMAX use to reserve that label for only true IMAX. Now they are confusing consumers -- the only reason why they changed that I can think of is to make more money. I only joined in February ... and I only found out about this (IMAX issue) like less than a year ago.

Wikipedia doesn't prove anything. Anyone can edit it and change information.