DISQUS

Rick Gershman · 6 months ago

Good column, Robert. I can't say it hit a whole lot of points I wasn't aware of before, but that's only because I'm pretty well versed on the subject. For anyone who doesn't already know the ins and outs of the IMAX ripoff (at least that's what I consider it), it's extremely useful info. Just keeping the subject alive and keeping up the pressure on IMAX to straighten out its deceptive marketing (at the least) is very important right now.

jack2jack · 6 months ago

I agree! When True Imax initally came out in limited areas, it was all the buzz. Most local news staff showed the public the differnce and what types of movies would play best on them.

Voltron · 6 months ago

truly informative, thank you

Ryan Shoots · 6 months ago

I'm lucky enough to have a theater with a full size IMAX screen, although the full screen is hardly used. Seeing the 35mm print enhanced to expand the new screen is very nice. And even if you're at one of the smaller IMAX screens, it's not a complete ripoff. I was suprised to not even see the SOUND of the "IMAX experience" mentioned. I don't care what movie it is, but watching the Comedian/Kirk/Optimus Prime getting beaten up with 12,000 watts of audio... that good sir is worth the money.

JAtt · 6 months ago

I was totally unaware of this IMAX "issue". thanks for saving me money!

Otis Jefferson · 6 months ago

The Franklin Institute in Philly is by far the best option if you live in the area. The screen in the Omniverse Theater is one of the largest in the world, and it meets all of the guidelines that were mentioned in this article. The best part is that since it's technically a museum that receives state funding, it's only $10 for an adult ticket. The only downside is that only a handful of films are selected for the venue each year. The Dark Knight made me dizzy in the opening sequence (a good thing, in my opinion), and they're showing Star Trek for the foreseeable future. I highly recommend it.

Dru Jeffries · 6 months ago

What you say about The Dark Knight (and by extension, most movies that show in IMAX theatres but were not filmed in the IMAX format) is not entirely correct. When movies shot in 35mm are blown up to 70mm for IMAX, they're never (in my experience, at least) cropped to fit the screen. The "original vision" is being maintained -- in no way is the framing of any shot compromised by being shown on a bigger screen. Maybe film grain is a little more visible, but other than that, no.

As for something being rotten in the "state" of Canada (nice forced Macbeth reference, by the way) -- I ddn't even know that this "IMAX experience" business exised until I read about it online. The Toronto AMC is charging a $2 (not $5) premium for the bigger screen version of Star Trek, but nowhere is the the word "IMAX" invoked. Even so, you can just say the regular ticket price and then walk into the bigger screen cinema, as I did. I've seen Star Trek on both screens, and can confirm that the "experience" is not significantly different.

Charles · 6 months ago

When I saw The Dark Knight on IMAX at my screen, the 35mm parts had the normal (2.4) aspect ratio, and when the 70mm parts came on, the picture expanded to fill the IMAX screen. It wasn't as jarring as I thought it would be - it was quite smooth. But they didn't do any upconversion on the 35mm parts, which is good since I wanted the IMAX sequences to stand out.