Forums | MacLife

Dirty improperly encoded Xvid quality is just fine for most people!

-mark

That's REALLY disappointing.  But what does the would-be IMAX offer that's worth an extra $5?

mackerm wrote:

I'm frankly surprised that the IMAX company would allow its brand to be deprecated like this. They've gone to huge efforts to sell the virtues of their horizontal 70mm film projection system.

Yeah, even if it's still better than a normal movie, they should rename it. Something like IMAX Light.... IMAX mini.... I don't know, something else.

IMAX half.

-mark

IMAX-LC

This explains the retrofitting process a bit more.

http://gizmodo.com/5250625/cineplexes-g … conspiracy

I felt slightly better after reading it, but as someone who has gone to real IMAX theaters for ages (I saw "To Fly" at the Air and Space Museum back in the day, up through The Dark Knight at Lincoln Square) I'm disappointed that IMAX is choosing not to distinguish between "true" IMAX and the smaller retrofitted theaters.

I agree with the Gizmodo article that it might be worth a small premium to know you're getting a larger-than-normal screen and a pretty immersive experience, instead of some dingy 30' screen.  However, people should pay this premium knowing full well what to expect.  As it stands, people think they're gonna be getting the real thing.

It's a shame to see that theater chains such as AMC wanted to call it "IMAX Digital" to help consumers tell the difference and be aware up-front, and that IMAX shot it down.

I'm lucky enough to be pretty close to a real IMAX theater.  I feel bad for those who aren't, and who go to one of these newer ones expecting the real thing, and not getting what they think they're paying for.

I think a lot of people would still pay extra to see it in the smaller theater, but I think they should be fully informed up-front.

EDIT - Woops, just noticed that the Giz link was posted a few posts above mine...

Last edited by Mercury52 (2009-05-14 9:31 am)

Mercury52 wrote:

EDIT - Woops, just noticed that the Giz link was posted a few posts above mine...

Yeah, how about some freakin' credit!!

After reading the Gizmodo article, I've devised a cheaper alternative to their theater retrofit. Rope off the seats in the back.

The downtown Montreal megaplex has a real Imax screen, seeing Watchmen on that was quite something. But it's still an extra $5, and that's not peanuts when you already have to pay 12 to see the movie on a regular screen

bratboy wrote:

whatever happened to the omnimax?

omnimax is awesome.

Btw, good to see you again, John.

Having seen Star Trek on fake IMAX, regular movie screen and real IMAX, I think I can compare.  Fake IMAX (on which I also saw Watchmen) didn't seem all that different than the regular screen at the same multiplex, though I did see Up last night at a different multiplex with a pretty small auditorium and screen and the difference there was a bit more pronounced.  But when the same $16.50 that I pay for fake IMAX will also get me into a real, 5-story tall IMAX theater 75 miles from here, it's not worth it.

Here's a quick way to tell what you have:  If the screen has a widescreen aspect ratio, it's fake.  If the screen is mostly square and absurdly, ridiculously huge, it's the real thing.