IMAX

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

A brave New frontier in the art of cinema, or just the latest gimmick, like 3D, rumbling chairs, or scratch & sniff?

Discuss.




^{It's definitely a gimmick though.}

[Endicott]

I like having a big screen. And, at the stupid Cineworld I usually go to, it's the only screen that you can guarantee they will have bothered to focus correctly. I tend to go for 2D IMAX when possible.

[Blumf]

I'd like to see To Fly! (1976) again.

[AsparagusTrevor]

Hasn't IMAX been around for several decades?

Anyway, the bigger the screen the better I say.

[Glebe]

IMAX is smashing. Have knocked going to the pictures on the head again until the new year cos of the covid surge but look forward to seeing The Batman on that big fuck-off screen next year.

[McChesney Duntz]

I'd like to see To Fly! (1976) again.

Me too. Was just ruminating on the school trip we took to see this new wrinkle in filmic technology.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

I mean, there has to be something to make people actually go to the pictures, hasn't there.

[Glebe]

I wanna see Gatwick Gangsters in IMAX.

[Replies From View]

It's just the same as sitting too close to the screen of a normal cinema so you have to keep craning your neck around and wherever you look you're missing seven eighths of the director's vision.

But some people like it, so let them pay for it.

[Blumf]

Peripheral vision, mate, the whole point of IMAX. If you're looking around, you're doing it wrong.

[greenman]

The problem is Imax screens are much more likely to have seating thats too close to the screen to have it in your main field of vision.

The film format is perhaps more significant than the actual screens I'd say.

[Huxleys Babkins]

The problem is Imax screens are much more likely to have seating thats too close to the screen to have it in your main field of vision.

The film format is perhaps more significant than the actual screens I'd say.

Yeah, these new Imax screens in multiplexes aren't like the Imax cinemas of old. The seats in those were positioned steeply and so far back that you had the full screen in view, even at the front.

[sevendaughters]

boring 'premium experience' gimmick that people routinely fall for as cinemas attempt to justify their existence in a world moving beyind them.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

My main complaint is the cost involved. It's twice as as much for an Imax ticket and the nearest one to us, currently, is an hour's train journey away. It is therefore a bit blinking annoying when Christopher Nolan and his ilk act like it's essential part of the film - like, if I watch it in a normal cinema (or even, heaven forbid, on telly) and don't like it, it's my fault for not paying the extra £50.

3D was shit, but at least it only cost a couple of quid more and you didn't get pretentious farts acting like it was pure cinema.

Yeah, these new Imax screens in multiplexes aren't like the Imax cinemas of old. The seats in those were positioned steeply and so far back that you had the full screen in view, even at the front.

I went to both kinds last year and it was the older one that completely filled  my field of view. The screen also curves around the seating area to accentuate the effect. As far as I'm concerned, enveloping the audience like that is the whole point. While the newer multiplex one was larger than a normal cinema screen, you could still see all of it at once, making it effectively no different. The one thing they both had that set set them apart from other cinemas was mega bastard sound systems.

The local multiplex is building a new wing for an Imax screen. If it's the proper kind and they don't take the piss with ticket prices, I may change my opinion.

[madhair60]

Saw Ghostbusters Afterbirth on IMAX other day. a complete waste of time, money and energy

[buzby]

It was the invention of IMAX Digital in 2008 that led to it's spread into multiplexes (which was the specific reason they came up with it). The main limiting factor for traditional IMAX cinemas was the size of the projectors and the space required to store the reels of 15/70 format film (there are only two IMAX 15/70 screens in the North of England - the National Science and Media Museum in Bradford and the Printworks in Manchester, though most of their time these days is spent showing IMAX Digital films). Christopher Nolan is pretty much the only director left who uses the original film-based IMAX format for feature films.

The big difference between them is in resolution - IMAX Digital uses 4K (4096x2160, 8.8Megapixels) for projection, much like any other digital cinema system. The 70mm 15/70 IMAX film format has an effective resolution of more than 70 Megapixels. The Digital system's lack of resolution in comparison is what led to the smaller screens being used, as showing a 4K picture on the original 70-80ft tall screen would highlight it's shortcomings, so they reduced the screen size (which along with not needing a hulking great projection room also helped it's takeup for converting existing cinemas, or fitting them into new-builds).

[Replies From View]

Peripheral vision, mate, the whole point of IMAX. If you're looking around, you're doing it wrong.

Sorry for being too short-sighted and not being able to see outside the range of my spectacle lenses WHY I OUGHTTA



Don't forget to kick someone's walking stick away on your way home!!

[Replies From View]

The one thing they both had that set set them apart from other cinemas was mega bastard sound systems.

just listen properly

[mothman]

I went to my first ever IMAX recently. Dune. I'd never had the opportunity to go to one before so thought, why not? If I had to characterise the experience, I'd say it was like sitting closer to the screen (than I would normally) without sitting closer to the screen.

[Replies From View]

I went to my first ever IMAX recently. Dune. I'd never had the opportunity to go to one before so thought, why not? If I had to characterise the experience, I'd say it was like sitting closer to the screen (than I would normally) without sitting closer to the screen.

In other words like someone else has very kindly moved the screen closer to your seat.

[Crenners]

It's interesting when they change the ratio for the IMAX bit. I thought it was odd at first but then I decided it liked the occasional forays into the IMAX framing and resolution.

[Noodle Lizard]

Hasn't IMAX been around for several decades?

Yeah, what?

Anyway, it's good for certain types of movies. Can't imagine needing to see the latest Mike Leigh on an IMAX screen, but it felt like the only worthwhile way of watching something like Gravity or Avatar.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Gravatar.

Imax has been around a long time. I saw a short documentary about the Himalayas at the Bradford Media Museum some time in the late '90s. Properly vertiginous stuff and all without the need for 3D glasses. As Buzby was saying though, it's only in the last decade and a bit that it's moved into mainstream cinema.

The inspiration for this thread was seeing Dune on a normal screen the other day and not thinking much of it. Then I saw loads of idiotspeople saying "Oh, but you have to see it in Imax, or you can't do it justice."

Bollocks to that, quite frankly. For most of my life, many of the greatest films ever made have only been available to me on telly - a lot of which I saw for the first time on crappy old VHS - and they still managed to enthral me. This idea that you have to see these things on the biggest (most expensive) screen possible is pure marketing drivel.

I say make the films better, not bigger.

[Noodle Lizard]

I remember my folks taking me to the London IMAX a fair bit in the couple of years after it opened, and it was more geared towards shortish nature documentaries and special effects stuff (3D, sometimes) than movies.

But I think it's fair enough for some big blockbusters now given their scale. It's always nice to look at really big crisp images, even if the film is a bit shit. I can't imagine being anything but dreadfully bored watching the latest Avengies entry on a small screen, so I tend not to bother if I miss them in the cinema. IMAX is perfectly good for those things that are designed to engage your senses and not much else.

[imitationleather]

I remember my folks taking me to the London IMAX a fair bit in the couple of years after it opened, and it was more geared towards shortish nature documentaries and special effects stuff (3D, sometimes) than movies.

Yeah that screen is seriously fucking big and I've only ever seen specifically-made documentaries there. Not been for about twenty years, mind.

When you've been there and you go to one of the other IMAXes the reaction is very "...Is this it?"

[Crenners]

This idea that you have to see these things on the biggest (most expensive) screen possible is pure marketing drivel.

I say make the films better, not bigger.

I disagree but I understand your cynicism. Most contemporary films with an IMAX presentation are very poor, but the format itself is superb. It's also sixty years old, and therefore far from the latest anything. There's a considerable difference between watching a film on a 32" HD telly, a 77" 4K OLED telly or an IMAX screen. It doesn't matter whether you're watching The taste of green tea over rice or John Wick. Cinema is designed and conceived for the largest, highest resolution screen.

[buzby]

Yeah that screen is seriously fucking big and I've only ever seen specifically-made documentaries there. Not been for about twenty years, mind.

When you've been there and you go to one of the other IMAXes the reaction is very "...Is this it?"

Most of the reason why the original 15/70 IMAX format only got used for shorts and documentaries is that like the projectors, the cameras for it are massive, and they can only hold about 3 minutes of film.

The only IMAX theatres with 15/70 film projectors in the UK are the aforementioned ones in Manchester and Bradford, and the BFI and Science Museum in London. All the others either have the newer 4K dual laser digital projection system, or some still have the older 2K digital system (I think the digital system at the BFI is still the old 2K one too - the Leicester Square IMAX has the 4K system).

Regarding the screen size, only the Science Museum, BFI and Printworks Manchester have the full-size 1.43:1 ratio screen (around 25m x 18m). The others have IMAX Digital ratio screens (1.9:1, around 24m x 13m,, though soem like the Odeon Liverpool and Trafford Centre IMAXes are a fair bit smaller than that ).

[Replies From View]

Has anyone else realised yet that it makes no difference whether you go to a big IMAX screen or just sit very close to your laptop screen with earphones in.  "Seeing it on the big screen" is such a con sentiment in this day and age.

[Noodle Lizard]

Well, in the present day, going to the cinema is kind of like borrowing a curated A/V setup which you couldn't possibly accommodate/afford to replicate in your own home. There are absolutely films which only reach their full potential in that scenario, as that's what they were designed for.

The problem comes when cinemas are forced to cut corners and have massive issues with projection/audio, which makes it a far less worthwhile experience.

I honestly dread the day where films are produced only with the ultimate destination of "streaming" in mind.

[Cuntbeaks]

They proper Imax in Glasgow at the Science Centre never reopened after the Covid lockdown and it still boils my piss.

I remember seeing my first ever film there and being overwhelmed by the clarity and sound. Even the most mundane scenes were a joy to see.

The second rocket launch sequence from the Hubble film was the most incredible thing I've ever experienced in a cinema, the sound was outrageous. Came out in a daze and almost everyone we passed was waxing lyrical about the bit.

For that 60 seconds alone, Imax has a special place in my heart.