Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Buyer Beware - The Fake "IMAX" Screens

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Denver
    Adopted Bronco:
    Brandon McMustache
    Posts
    16,767

    Default Buyer Beware - The Fake "IMAX" Screens

    With all the new summer releases well under way, I'd thought I'd take this chance to address a pet peeve of mine that is happening with the movie industry right now. Its expensive enough to go see a movie, but if you want to go see an IMAX movie prices can really elevate. If you want to see it in IMAX 3D you can expect to pay $20 a ticket! But a little known fact unless you grew up with the original IMAX screens and know what they really look like is that most theaters touting that they have them are full of crap. But they WILL charge you the same price for a sub-par experience. For example, here in Colorado there are only 2 true IMAX screens I know of - one in Colorado Springs and one at the History Museum. If you've ever experienced a true IMAX Screen the difference is striking between it and a normal movie screen. I just wanted to post this article and graphic as a heads up before you head out to see any movies in IMAX this summer. Don't get roped in for paying more unless its the real thing.




    That's not the IMAX I grew up with

    By Roger Ebert on May 27, 2009

    It started for me with a letter from a Los Angeles filmmaker named Mike Williamson, who contacted me March 7 in outrage about a bait-and-switch involving IMAX. He paid an extra fee to see a movie in Burbank, and wrote the company in protest: "As soon as I walked in the theatre, I was disgusted. This was not an IMAX screen. Simply extending a traditional multiplex screen to touch the sides and floor does not constitute an IMAX experience. An IMAX screen is gargantuan. It is like looking at the side of a large building, and it runs vertically in a pronounced way. It is not a traditional movie screen shape....This screen was pathetic by IMAX standards."
    http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009...grew_up_w.html

  2. The Following 6 Users High Fived MasterShake For This Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Adopted Bronco:
    Paul George
    Posts
    29,260

    Default

    Two or three years ago one of the theaters here started advertising that they had converted one screen to IMAX in order to compete with a newer theater which has a authentic IMAX screen. Since its closer to our home, I decided to go see a flick there... I felt really cheated, and realized that most folks probably don't even realize that it's not a true IMAX.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Morrison, CO
    Posts
    189

    Default

    Thanks MasterS, I was wondering about that. See some movie theaters around I-25 claiming Imax, just didn't think so.
    Enjoy my "German Denver Broncos fans" page on Facebook.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    My first couple Imax experience was the now all but extinct Omnimax, which were the original IMAX theaters that were domed projection screens like a planetarium.

    On the "fake IMAX," I wonder if they are using the true IMAX film and projection setup, or if that has all gone digital. My guess is it's gone digital. For all I know, all IMAX's have gone digital. They used to have projectors that worked on HUGE rolls of film. Often they had part of the film reel mechanism viewable to to people in the lobby, often on the first floor, with the projector itself on the second floor.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Denver
    Adopted Bronco:
    Brandon McMustache
    Posts
    16,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tned View Post
    My first couple Imax experience was the now all but extinct Omnimax, which were the original IMAX theaters that were domed projection screens like a planetarium.

    On the "fake IMAX," I wonder if they are using the true IMAX film and projection setup, or if that has all gone digital. My guess is it's gone digital. For all I know, all IMAX's have gone digital. They used to have projectors that worked on HUGE rolls of film. Often they had part of the film reel mechanism viewable to to people in the lobby, often on the first floor, with the projector itself on the second floor.
    I think they are all going digital. The original IMAX projectors could hold just under 2 hours of film which is why they only usually show educational films on them. I remember they did Attack of the Clones for a limited run on the old IMAX projectors and had to cut 20 minutes of film so it would fit on the reels. They mostly cut the sappy love scenes so it was actually a good cut of the movie.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    22,211

    Default

    They aren't "fake" IMAX. IMAX became synonomous with LARGE screens, true HD pictures, superiour 3D technology, and incredible sound. You can only see so much of the screen anyway. You have the same HD screen, the same sound, and the larger than normal screen (that is 225% larger and an increase in field of view 59%) with amazing laser screen tech. So what makes it "not" be an IMAX experience other than those claiming that the BIGGEST screens are the only "real" IMAX??? I"m not quite sure.

    Even the newer IMAX theaters have sound systems that are laser calibrated and theaters drawn up in CAD to locate the most optimal speaker position and angle.

    So what is "True" IMAX and not fake? Is size really what makes it "true?" Hardly..... just read an interview in popular mechanics.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...s/news/4329380


    another by Gizmo explaining the differences (good article)

    http://gizmodo.com/5250625/cineplexe...-or-conspiracy

    Great article describing the differences in better detail by BigScreen.

    http://www.bigscreen.com/journal.php?id=1505
    (the previous comment was not directed at any particular individual and was not intended to slander,disrespect or offend any reader of said statement)

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Denver
    Adopted Bronco:
    Brandon McMustache
    Posts
    16,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravage!!! View Post
    They aren't "fake" IMAX. IMAX became synonomous with LARGE screens, true HD pictures, superiour 3D technology, and incredible sound. You can only see so much of the screen anyway. You have the same HD screen, the same sound, and the larger than normal screen (that is 225% larger and an increase in field of view 59%) with amazing laser screen tech. So what makes it "not" be an IMAX experience other than those claiming that the BIGGEST screens are the only "real" IMAX??? I"m not quite sure.

    Even the newer IMAX theaters have sound systems that are laser calibrated and theaters drawn up in CAD to locate the most optimal speaker position and angle.

    So what is "True" IMAX and not fake? Is size really what makes it "true?" Hardly..... just read an interview in popular mechanics.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...s/news/4329380


    another by Gizmo explaining the differences (good article)

    http://gizmodo.com/5250625/cineplexe...-or-conspiracy

    Great article describing the differences in better detail by BigScreen.

    http://www.bigscreen.com/journal.php?id=1505
    All of the articles you posted admit to just what I was saying and trying to inform people about. My point is that IMAX is trying to brand these things as what is traditionally a million dollar building surrounding a 75ft screen. They need to let people know that they are not traditional IMAX screens, but IMAX MPX. Your third article from bigscreen.com hits the nail on the head of what I am trying to say:

    The bigger mistake, and the harder one to correct, is the one made by IMAX Corporation when they created these new smaller screens, but then didn't brand them differently. In an article from last October titled "Is IMAX the next New Coke?," the LF Examiner contends that IMAX didn't want to differentiate these new smaller screens that were getting digital projectors installed. I'm thinking that IMAX is second-guessing that decision right now, but I would also imagine that they are hoping to weather this storm, figuring that the attention will be redirected to something else soon and they can continue on without having to change anything.
    I'm merely trying to point out that for $17-20 you better be sure you find a dedicated IMAX screen if you can, otherwise the IMAX "experience" is cheapened. I understand that they are trying to say that its about the immersive experience and it doesn't matter if its the larger more traditional IMAX or the newer IMAX MPX but I have been to both and I know which one I prefer and its the traditional large format screen. They should have re-branded it as its own separate entity and not charge people the same amount for what in my opinion is a sub-par presentation. For example I saw The Dark Knight at the local IMAX MPX screen as well as the dedicated one in Colorado Springs as part of a charity event and the difference to me anyway was striking.

    I have talked to those that don't mind the smaller ones, so I say to each his own. Maybe my biggest problem with the whole thing is that they really need to consider lowering the prices if they aren't using prints that cost $60,000 anymore and using digital projectors that are cheaper. There is no reason why they should charge nearly $20 for a half-ass attempt. And there is also a history of theater owners promoting certain movies in IMAX that were not even filmed in IMAX and STILL charging the same amount. For example (once again I pick on them) the Colorado and I-25 IMAX near me. They have a marquee and right at the top is always the IMAX feature. The last two movies I saw next to the IMAX marquee were Mission Impossible 2: Ghost Protocol and The Avengers. Only one of these was shot in true 70MM, the other was simply projected on the IMAX screen in a letterbox format (the Avengers).

    So yes, technically you are still getting the IMAX experience on the smaller screens, but the only other movie I know of that was filmed with true IMAX cameras is the Dark Knight Rises. Yet these IMAX MPX screens will still show non-IMAX movies on them and charge people the same amount. I'm all over the place right now with this, so I'll end with that as the true meaning behind my warning as explained by this article quote:

    The big issue is that IMAX and theaters don’t distinguish Digital IMAX theaters from the 70mm 15perf HUGE IMAX theaters. The ticket prices are the same, an estimated $5 more than a traditional screening. If this surcharge is worth it to you is debatable, but the fact that IMAX does not even let consumers know the difference is a travesty. They are completely different technologies, entirely different experiences, but they are marketed as the same thing — IMAX. In the past I have suggested that IMAX market and label the two types of theaters as IMAX Digital and IMAX Huge, but the company refuses to do anything about it. They’re making tons of money? Why be honest to their customers? Most of them probably don’t and won’t know any better, right?

    For me the choice comes down to if the film features footage shot in 70mm 15 perf IMAX. Films like Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and The Dark Knight Rises are a must-see in real 70mm IMAX. If you are not seeing the film on a real IMAX screen, you are missing a good chunk of the intended experience. I would never choose to see these films in a traditional theater or an IMAX Digital theater. I would strongly recommend driving to a real 70mm IMAX theater if it’s even within an hour’s driving distance as opposed to a Digital IMAX theater down the street. For these movies the difference is huge, and it is worth it to seek out a real IMAX theater. There is a reason Christopher Nolan ONLY released The Dark Knight Rises prologue in real IMAX theaters. At a press event, he urged journalists to tell their readers to seek out the 70mm presentation as it provides an experience like no other.
    http://www.slashfilm.com/qa-imax-the...l-imax-liemax/

  9. The Following 4 Users High Fived MasterShake For This Post:


  10. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Adopted Bronco:
    Ron Dayne
    Posts
    20,574

    Default

    LOL the last movie I saw in the theaters was Apollo 18. I used to go to the movies all the time, but then girls stopped liking me :/

  11. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    22,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sneakers View Post
    LOL the last movie I saw in the theaters was Apollo 18. I used to go to the movies all the time, but then girls stopped liking me :/
    Try to unchain yourself every now and again
    (the previous comment was not directed at any particular individual and was not intended to slander,disrespect or offend any reader of said statement)

  12. The Following User High Fived Ravage!!! For This Post:


  13. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Denver
    Adopted Bronco:
    Brandon McMustache
    Posts
    16,767

    Default

    Haha! Just went back and read my post from last night and its kind of all over the place. Here is my final thought on the matter and the original point of this thread. I know that technically the IMAX experience is replicated in the IMAX MPX theaters, the screen size issue is more of a personal preference with me. My main issue is that there are only a handful of films that come out every year that are actually shot with scenes in 70MM which is the IMAX size. Often times theaters will just put up the latest box office hit (which was not filmed to IMAX specifications) on their IMAX MPX screen and tout it as an IMAX experience and charge you the same amount. That is what I am warning people about. Its essentially like putting in a full-screen ratio DVD into your Bluray player and zooming in to make the picture touch all the sides on your widescreen HDTV.

    My first and only experience with this was Star Wars Episode III in "IMAX". The edges of the screen were cut off and the film was grainy due to it being zoomed in to fit the IMAX ratio. And they still charged me $17 for a shitty experience. That was my own fault for not researching and realizing that it was not shot in IMAX (obviously) nor was it converted to work on the screen. If someone wants to see The Dark Knight Rises or Mission Impossible at a tradtional OR IMAX MPX screen (even though I personally think the MPX screens are crap), knock yourself out. But if they are playing The Avengers on the IMAX screen, they shouldn't charge you the IMAX price because you are not getting that experience.

  14. The Following User High Fived MasterShake For This Post:


  15. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    Size isn't as big an issue for me as viewing angle. You can have a huge screen, but also a huge auditorium and most seats are so far away that the field of view is no different than the smaller screen in the smaller theater.

    However, I am fully on board with your points about something being truly filmed on IMAX 70MM film vs. a standard film being zoomed/cropped to fit the screen.

    This brings up a MAJOR pet peeve of mine that for a time wasn't an issue, but now is resurfacing. That is not honoring the aspect ratio of a film.

    In the case of IMAX, I think it's 1.44. It's closer to the old NTSC 4:3 aspect ratio we had on TVs for decades before the widescreen 16x9 (1.78:1) TVs started appearing not so long ago. That means that IMAX films are far closer your old non-widescreen TV than your new widescreen/HD set, and most action/epic type movies are filmed with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1, or much more widescreen than HDTV.

    If you take a movie that was filmed in the IMAX aspect ratio, 1.44, like the Dark Knight (even though most of it wasn't filmed on 70mm film) then it can be displayed in full on the IMAX screen, as the director intended, with no cropping or letter boxing/side barring. However, the flip side of that is if you watch the DVD on your HDTV, the ONLY way you see it exactly as the director intended is if it has black sidebars (pillar box) on the left and right, to maintain the 1.44 ratio.

    Take a move like Star Wars Episode III (as mentioned above) which is in the more common Cinemascope 2.35 aspect ratio, if this is shown on a 1.44 IMAX screen, or an old NTSC (non HDTV) TV set, it requires one of two things are done. First, and the best solution, is to present it letterboxed, where there are black bars at the top and bottom, with the moving presented in the middle in it's original aspect ratio. Second, a "pan and scan" process is used, where an edited version of the film is shown where they zoom in on one area and then pan over to another area, and then another area, etc. For instance, in the original film you might have a scene with two people holding a conversation with both in view. However, when you go to the narrow 1.44 format, both couldn't fit on the screen, they zoom in on the person speaking, and then pan over to the other person when they are speaking, and then back to the other person, etc.

    This was VERY common when they ported movies to TV. Because many people were "upset" seeing black bars (letterbox) on their TV, it became common place to do this pan and scanning on moves shown on network or cable TV or on VHS.

    Nutjobs like myself that were driven crazy by this went the route of laserdiscs, because back then, it was the only way to get movies presented in their original aspect ratio. Then when DVD's came out, it became standard to show the movies in their original aspect ratio, which would mean it was presented in a letterbox. With widespread adoption of DVD players and people getting used to seeing movies letterboxed, companies like DirecTV and channels like HBO bowed to the pressure of purists and started showing many of their moves letterboxed in their original aspect ratio. In the case of DirecTV, they would have an icon that told you this.

    Now, with the advent of HDTV, at first, even when movies were shown on HDTV channels (like HBO, starz, PPV, etc.) they were shown in their original aspect ratio, but the size of the black bars (letterbox) were smaller, because the TV is more widescreen, so it's almost the same as the commonly used 1.85:1, for instance.

    However, over the last couple years, networks have gone back to pan and scan as the norm. DirecTV for instance has move almost exclusively to presenting PPV movies cropped using pan and scan, because uninformed consumers get upset when they see the black bars and get angry about not seeing a "true HD" version of the movie.

    There used to be some great side by side comparisons of scenes from popular movies presented in their natural aspect ratio and then the scene when cropped. Back then, these were intended to show what happens when the pan and scan process was used to "fit" the movie to TV screen, but as the aspect ratio of IMAX is almost identical to the old TVs, they would closely resemble how films are butchered to fit the IMAX screen. I'll see if I can find some.

    To avoid this butchering of a film on an IMAX screen, you should check a site like IMDB or another that lists the films aspect ratio and only watch films on IMAX screens that have an aspect ratio of 1.44:1.

  16. The Following 2 Users High Fived Tned For This Post:


  17. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    I found a great video with some of the greatest directors of our lifetime talking about (and visually showing the impact) of pan and scanning.



    One note on regular films on IMAX screens. IF what they do is use curtains (would have to be from the top and bottom if the full screen is actually IMAX dimensions) then pan and scan wouldn't apply.

  18. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Adopted Bronco:
    Paul George
    Posts
    29,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tned View Post
    My first couple Imax experience was the now all but extinct Omnimax, which were the original IMAX theaters that were domed projection screens like a planetarium.

    On the "fake IMAX," I wonder if they are using the true IMAX film and projection setup, or if that has all gone digital. My guess is it's gone digital. For all I know, all IMAX's have gone digital. They used to have projectors that worked on HUGE rolls of film. Often they had part of the film reel mechanism viewable to to people in the lobby, often on the first floor, with the projector itself on the second floor.
    I love OmniMax. That was my first experience with any form of IMAX as well.

    We have an OmniMax theater here in OKC, and I always enjoy it. Unfortunately, there's only so many movies shot for it. ..

  19. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NightTrainLayne View Post
    I love OmniMax. That was my first experience with any form of IMAX as well.

    We have an OmniMax theater here in OKC, and I always enjoy it. Unfortunately, there's only so many movies shot for it. ..
    I haven't seen one in a long time, so I didn't know if there were any still around.

Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group