Fuck me sideways! Lets all boycott the IMAX screens!

Nah, I'm holding out for the 5-D IMAXTACULAR® with the 14.1 THX©-Hypersonic Penetrator Surround Sound™ that takes up the same square feet as 7 football fields and you have to be in a concrete seats 5 miles from the stage to not go blind and deaf!!1!!1!11!....

....People, you have two eyes and two ears. You can only hear things so loud, and can only see so much at one time. Enough.

...which is considerably better than typical theater screens can offer. I'm sure you'd see the difference between a regular screen and a true IMAX presentation. Just about everybody can; that's why they're still in business.

If you go to the Arclight in Hollywood and watch movies in the Dome, like I did for Star Trek, the screen is huge. It's no increase in resolution, but sounds better than this digital IMAX nonsense. Also you don't have to pay extra for it.

Dennis

Thanks for the tip, Dennis.

Anyone reading this who agrees this is crap should sign this petition:
http://bit.ly/liemaxpetition

Thanks,
Oyez

1. The highest quality IMAX experience is that of footage shot on IMAX cameras using IMAX film (69.6 mm by 48.5 mm) being run through a special IMAX projector onto the large, tall IMAX screen. For example, The Dark Knight has multiple scenes shot and projected in what I like to call "true IMAX,", as will Revenge of the Fallen. As for "true IMAX 3D", some IMAX 3D documentaries are filmed and projected this way, but as of yet no major hollywood film has been completely shot and projected in true 70mm IMAX 3D.

2. The second highest quality IMAX experience is that of footage - either 35mm or digital 2k/1080p - being "blown up" using a proprietary process that IMAX refers to as DMR (Digital Remastering), which employs digital methods to reduce film grain/pixelization, and then prints the result onto IMAX film stock. This was the way I saw Transformers tonight. Watching a 2k/1080p or 35mm film "blown up" to IMAX stock in this way is definitely more impressive than watching it in a regular 35mm or digital projection theater, but it is still quite a bit below the level of detail and clarity of watching something like those specially shot scenes from The Dark Knight, the super high resolution of which (along with my close proximity to the giant screen) made me believe I was looking through a crystal clear window into another world.

3. Here is what you absolutely have to avoid: IMAX digital. This process is simply two stacked 2k projectors. I saw Watchmen in an IMAX digital theater, and the image quality was dreadful: incredibly pixelated and with a ton of digital artifacts. The main reason for this low quality? The fact that IMAX digital is essentially a 1080p image digitally projected onto a huge screen which you will be sitting relatively close to. Try sitting less than one image height away from your 1080p TV, and you will see the pixels. IMAX digital looks even worse than that.
From a marketsaw article

I hate when I see people recommending others to go see upconversions of regular movies in IMAX. They're just completely wasting their money and supporting further deception of the movie-going public by the industry. There's nothing more disgusting than IMAX bragging about how much it made off Star Trek over the weekend when it's basically a scam.

If it's not The Dark Knight or various natural documentaries, there is absolutely no need to pay for an IMAX ticket. It's a total racket.

I have to disagree. I appreciate the distinction between unconverted 35mm and true IMAX, but there is still value (for me) in seeing upconverted 35mm on an IMAX screen. The raking of the seating is steeper, so the seat in front of you doesn't distract as much as it would even in a stadium seating multiplex. The sound is better. They put transducers in the seats. There aren't as many "bad" seats. There aren't any ads before the show.

Sure, the digitally remastered 35mm doesn't hold a candle to true 70mm in terms of resolution and aspect ratio, but the experience improved is worth the extra $2-3 ticket price.

I actually saw TDK at the exact same Burbank theatre mentioned and like Aziz, was surprised to see it wasn't a real IMAX screening (when it was re-released in January).

For a while I thought I might've been in the wrong room, but such was not the case. Still, despite what market wrote, I found the projection slightly better than regular film - sharp picture, great colors and contrast, but the sound was the biggest difference, it was great. Still, I wish it had been the original, full-sized IMAX.

Peter, I think you were a little to fair in the headline saying "probably" instead of "absolutely shouldn't".

Funny that you post about this... I went to Star Trek at what was an IMAX showing, walk in and the screen wasn't anywhere as big as all the other IMAX theaters I've ever been too. Me and my fiancee turn to each other and asked if this was really IMAX? Needless to say I will stick to the normal screen instead of paying $5 more for a minor increase to screen size.

i completely agree with you!! i saw watchman in imax and the first thing that came to my head was 'i thought imax was bigger!' friday i saw star trek in a normal screen and couldn't tell if it was really smaller.

Just a little side note: I was in NY's Lincoln Square IMAX in January and saw "The day the earth stood still". And as dumb as the movie might be, the IMAX experience really worked out for me. It was the first time for me in an IMAX theater, screen was huge (biggest I've ever seen, let's face it: I'm from Germany and we don't have any IMAX theaters), sound was enormous and I have to really say: IMAX saved the movie for me. TDTESS is a great IMAX movie :)

Also: I would pay 20 Euros to see an IMAX movie here in Germany! So please, build one, before the remake of Star Wars comes out December 2020.

I went to see The Matrix Reloaded and Attack of the Clones at that very theater. Awesome experience. That screen is insane! Plus you felt the sound system rattle your chair.

I am a little confused that people are surprised to discover the smaller screen, once they get inside a theater labeled IMAX -- especially if that theater had previously existed without the IMAX label.

Do these people have eyeballs? An IMAX screen would demand a massive structure (at least 120 feet tall). If the local multiplex (which has been there for let's say 10 years) suddenly has IMAX on the sign, yet the building has undergone no construction, where did you think the 100-foot screen was located? Underground?

A theater near here recently started doing the digital IMAX thing and at first I thought maybe they had actually added a new auditorium to accommodate it.... until I pulled into the parking lot and noticed the tallest point of the multiplex was still "only" like 60 feet high. And, as the graph clearly shows, 60 feet = not real IMAX.

Maybe it's me but this sort of confusion could easily be avoided if people were more observant. The theaters themselves should make the difference clear for the customer but you shouldn't need to be told "you're aware that this screen isn't 100 feet tall?" if the building isn't close to 100 feet tall.

The Jordan's IMAX in Reading, MA, has a technology called Butt-kickers, a speaker under your seat that causes your seat to vibrate and kick you in the butt when really loud, and Sealy posturepedic seats!

The seats at the Reading, MA Jordan's are NOT Sealy Posturepedic seats. They are simply leather seats. The posturepedic seats are only at the NATICK, MA Jordan's.

Oh really??! I didn't know that. Thanks! I guess I will stick to Natick then. Reading is a newer theater. I don't know why they wouldn't have added them?

I didn't know that. I've only been to Reading. The seats are nice, but didn't seem like posturepedic, although they do advertise them as memory foam there.

yes... now this is lame. I didn't even know that AMC theatres had fake IMAX screens.

me either :(

Here in The UK we have an Imax Digital screen at Greenwich multiplex and i have been impressed with the quality of the picture so far. Probably because its digital and most movies here are shown on print. Anything with full screen imax i always go to the central London Imax which is the huge screen. Its true that the multiplex are not entirely honest about the size of the screen, the website for the greenwich odeon describes their imax screen as being the same as the 'real' imax in waterloo. Even the picture of the screen is showing the 8 storey screen.

I saw Star Trek at the Lincoln Square IMAX in NYC (aka the "real" IMAX). It was phenomenal. I always choose the IMAX up-conversion over standard 35mm and, yes, I recommend others do so. It's astonishing.

I did too. You know you are going to an IMAX movie when you go up several escalator rides just to get to the theater. IMAX has been around for a long time now and I have always been a fan of films made for the format. (Destiny in Space, anyone???). My real complaint with IMAX is that if you don't get seats in the back or middle of the theater you are screwed. If you thought sitting in the front for a regular movie sucked, wait to you have to sit in the front row of an IMAX movie. In my opinion, optimal seating for IMAX is close to the rear where you can get the whole picture.

I went to see MvA in IMAX 3D, making me think it would be as big a screen as the ones at the museums or some huge ones at theaters. I was wrong- while it was still a little better than usual, it was a huge letdown.

There has to be an advertised difference between real IMAX and digital IMAX. Otherwise many will be angry.

I saw trek here in Milwaukee in the ultrascreen, which is about 60% the size of IMAX. You pay about a dollar more, but it is definitley not advertised as IMAX - it actually looks the be the size of the "so called" IMAX screen Aziz saw though. There are a bunch of 'ultrascreens' around this area.

The point isn't whether or not the customer should be observant of the theater size... the point is that the IMAX name is being used deceptively on theaters that aren't in true IMAX image size. There are some people who have never experienced an IMAX movie simply because there was never an IMAX theater in their city, and now when they heard of digital IMAX and especially when theaters do not differentiate the two, then it's very misleading.

Most people hear are probably regular moviegoers and might know the difference, or might make the mistake once and then know the difference. Some people who don't visit movie sites probably wouldn't know and thus get ripped off by paying for something that's not the real IMAX experience.

The IMAX screen at the Metreon in SF is a true IMAX screen, and I've seen a number of Hollywood movies there (TDK, Watchmen), despite living closer to a number of digital IMAX screens. Thanks for posting this, Peter. I'm sorely disappointed at how IMAX has diluted its name.

Just to confirm--when you say that the Metreon is a true IMAX screen, you mean that it projects 70mm film and not digital. Correct?

The IMAX in Century City mall is garbage. I paid an extra $7 bucks per ticket, and did not get anything better than a regular screen showing. Good to know that just because the theater markets itself as IMAX, in some cases, it truly isn't!

thank you for posting about this!

I feel shafted now.

my local digital IMAX screen is also a legit "5 story" screen. watchmen looked pretty awesome to me on it. I'm going to see star trek on the weekend.

ugh!!!!!... i just bought tickets online with like 8 of my friends to see the "IMAX" Star Trek in 42nd St tomorrow evening and then someone sends me this.... I had no idea there could be an IMAX that wasn't IMAX for $5 extra... I was so excited to see the movie and now I feel like I am throwing out money.

Most of the theaters where I live (Austin, Texas) have terrible sound and projection.

Except for the Alamos, and the Galaxy. Too bad they make up maybe 15% of the theaters here at most.

It would be one thing if they didn't charge the extra $5. I'll take what improvments to sound and picture I can get. That said charging $5 extra is insane.

Lincoln Center IMAX is one of the best...

2 busts are the science center in Baltimore (seats are way too close to the screen) and the Franklin museum IMAX in philly (it's projected on a dome - of what I assume is an old planetarium - and the lines of the connecting pieces of the dome are distracting from the image...)

IMAX Dome Theaters (as they have in Philly) are distinct from a standard IMAX theatre. They are best for content that is filmed using a fish eye lens on 70mm high-perf. This is pretty much exclusively documentary content. I've not been to the Philly IMAX Dome, but the one is Boston has always been branded as OMNIMAX...the dome lines can be distracting and I wouldn't want to see a feature film in there, but the documentaries they produce for the dome far surpass the standard five story IMAX screen.

Are people really stupid enough to think that AMC would do a nation wide implementation of IMAX screens across the board? I guess it's the principal of the matter in that they are marketing it as the IMAX experience that has everyone up in arms.

IMAX is great. But only certain movies are worth the extra money (for me its only an extra $3). The Dark Knight was so worth it. Movies like Watchmen were not worth the extra money and the 45 minute drive to the nearest IMAX theater. It was just a bigger screen, really. IMAX 3D movies and movies that are made for IMAX are worth. I hear Michael Bay used IMAX cameras on Transformers 2, something like that is worth the money.

I go to NYC all the time and experienced the difference the Hard Way.
I saw Eagle Eye in the Empire 25 IMAX and was like, "Wait, WTF IS GOING ON!?"
Cause I'm used to the Lincoln Square IMAX, this was a total shock.
I decided to sit somewhat closer than normal just to TRY To get that feeling back.
No luck

Amc theatres in a lot of theatres are converting their screens to bigger Imax screens. The one in burbank is about 20 ft bigger then the previous screen. If you look at it, it goes from floor to ceiling. They also changed the sound system. Watched the original Dark Knight when it was first installed back in October. Christopher Nolan was also there to watch it and to approve it. Because Burbank was the first in a series of Digital Imax conversion. They asked for his opinion. Yea some movies shouldn't be in Imax but it is a big difference from the traditional 35mm movies.

So, does this explain all the bragging about how Trek supposedly beat TDK at IMAX this past weekend, breaking TDK's opening weekend for IMAX? Because, I'd guess the two movies played at roughly the same number of true IMAX screens, but I remember screenings of TDK selling out and being shown pretty much around the clock all over the country during its first weekend. I haven't heard anything of the sort about Trek weekend.

Not to mention, while Trek had a strong opening weekend, it wasn't close to TDK's overall first weekend. It also did about $10 million less than Wolverine did the previous weekend. I'm guessing that the "IMAX" totals for Trek included all these fake IMAX screens too.

Yes, Shaun. Star Trek was showing on 138 IMAX screens whereas TDK was showing on 94 screens. That is a 47% advantage in screen count for Star Trek.

It's disappointing that IMAX is selling themselves out right as Christopher Nolan begins to really push their name into the mainstream by using their format to film parts of the biggest box office hit of the decade. Now is not the time to abandon the quality they had in the past, not when the public is starting to realize what a true IMAX experience can do for the theatrical experience. In an age where Blu-ray and big screen TV's make it very difficult to bother dealing with all the morons at the movie theater (cell phones, texting, etc.), IMAX offers a unique experience and they are completely diluting it with these fake screens.

fyi, the CEO of IMAX responded to Aziz's post in this news article:
http://www.mainstreet.com/article/lifestyle/are-s...

So, y'all got burned, too?! I REFUSE to spend another freakin' dime on IMAX in Las Vegas. The Regal chain has three IMAX theaters here all wedged into Casino-based multiplexes. I'm avoiding the Brendan IMAX at the Palms because of my experience at Red Rock now. The only true IMAX screen was the one that closed at Luxor, but that was a horror show for other reasons. The Luxor screened ATOC and Matrix Revolutions, but featured a safety bar that locked into position when everyone was seated and no food/drink allowed. I haven't seen a decent IMAX screening since the old Pictorium at Great America and the Metreon in Northern CA.

This is horrible news! I have only seen one major motion picture (The Dark Knight) in IMAX. I was looking forward to having my second viewing of Star Trek in IMAX this weekend. But with this spread of knock off baby dick IMAX screens I could certainly see a decline in public interest. IWord of mouth will cause a decline in reputation for the entire IMAX experience which hopefully will result in the abandonment of these IMAX digital screens.

There's a theater right across your way in Emeryville, CA that's doing the same thing. I don't remember paying more for the ticket, but I was surprised that it was labeled IMAX and it was no where near the size of other IMAX theaters that I've been to.

This is really becoming upsetting. Especially if you are a frequent film-goer interested in newer theater technologies. People who are not in the know, are getting fooled by the newer IMAX installations.

I went to see "STAR TREK" at the Lincoln Square 13 in New York City. That screen is the orignal, true IMAX screen. And paying the $18.50 was worth it.

I got tricked at the newer IMAX screen in the AMC Empire 25 in Times Square when I went to see "THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL".

As soon as I walked into that IMAX theater, I looked around, and blurted out,

"WHAT THE ^#%* IS THIS @%^???
IMAX JR???

I was pretty upset to say the least. The saving grace was that I had a pass. So it only cost me $9.

I would like to know how and why theaters are getting away with this. And IMAX's involvement in this. It's totally unfair to ask film-goers to shell out an extra $5-$7 bucks, to only be conned.

I went to a IMAX theater in Brooklyn. I knew something was wrong, but I thought they found a creative way to fit that jumbo screen in the building. However was a pissed when i saw a non IMAX screen. now I tell anyone I know, to not use Regal Cinema IMAX

I think its quite shameful for IMAX to misrepresent their name like this. While IMAX does pertain to a specific format of film, it is also the name of that company - allowing them to just splash it on whatever theatre specifications they seem to want, and people will get confused. The average movie-goer won't really catch onto this, and if they do have the slightest concern they more than likely aren't going to voice any objections. Its rather sad to see a company stoop this low on their product and trademark.