Talk:IMAX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
 

Digital IMAX screen sizes[edit]

How big are the movie screens in the digital Imax theaters? I've read that they just remove the first few rows in the theater and move the screen closer, to make it appear bigger. But is it actually bigger than standard movie screens, or is it the same size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.108.200 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Digital Backlash? Better name for section?[edit]

Just a tiny suggestion, but I think the title for that section ("Digital Backlash") could be improved. Yes, maybe the "Backlash" was expressed online, but come on, it is not a main characteristic of said "Backlash". I came to the article looking exactly for information on this issue, but then thinking there was nothing about the topic and when I stumbled on this section I realized that is what this is about. Can someone more competent than me improve the title of the section. Maybe "Complaints regarging screen size" "Screen size confusion" (yeah, these aren't much better but you get my point ;) ). Thanks! 66.234.52.121 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done
the subject was already within the "Digital Theater System" topic, I think "Screen size controversy" works decently. "Backlash" is a bit non-neutral, and there are some weasel words sneaking into the paragraph. The main cited reference uses a Twitter quote as its kickoff point. But the article quickly turns a little more professional; the subject is interesting and could be expanded/improved upon greatly. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Dimensions/Units[edit]

In this subject, the actual units used (originally) are important. The auto-translation should be turned off or fixed to make clear what the units were (and their precision) before the translation. Does anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.178.144 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

IMAX acronym[edit]

It's stated in the first paragraph that IMAX means Image MAXimum. I worked for IMAX Corporation and I will say here that no one (high up) was able to say if IMAX is an acronym or if, like "Kodak," the word was merely created because it sounded imposing. This could be a fluke, but I'd love to see actual documentation for the word, especially if Graeme Ferguson or one of the original creators stepped forward with an announcement. More specifically, "Image MAXimum" was suggested by board members as a possible meaning for the word IMAX, but this would be more of a reverse acronym and not linked to the creation of the word. — Keraunoscopia (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is noteworthy that the purported source for this information (presently footnote 1) is a page which says:"This article [...] uses material from the Wikipedia article "IMage MaXimum"." (!). Thus we seem to have a circular attribution. AlatarK (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Done, acronym removed. --uKER (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)(will return to this item in a day or two) AlatarK (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I have recently (early June 2010) spoken to both of the two surviving founders and they both confirm that IMAX was intended to be a contraction of "Image Maximum". AlatarK (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
WP policy requires third-party reliable sourcing. The originator of a fact cannot confirm it. An interviewer of the originator of a fact cannot confirm it. Only a journalist, publishing objectively and reliably, can confirm it. David Spector (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Caesar's Palace[edit]

What? No mention of the OMNIMAX theater at Caesar's Palace? Japanimation station (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we get a picture of[edit]

A screen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.72.87 (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC) rar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.250.165 (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

IMAX format vs. IMAX Corporation[edit]

I see the company infobox was added to this article as well. Is that really necessary, if this article is about the IMAX format and IMAX Corporation has its own article? Should we make that distinction clearer? ("This is about the IMAX motion picture format. For the company, see IMAX Corporation.") 109.204.158.195 (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - I have removed the company infobox and added a hatnote to distinguish between the two articles. There is no point on doubling up on content - thanks for pointing this out. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Link to Showscan?[edit]

It's a bit weird that there is no link to Showscan here. Also no mention of competition between the two formats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.196.235 (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:IMAXScreenComparison.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:IMAXScreenComparison.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Titanic[edit]

If it wasn't on one platter, I couldn't tell; the whole presentation was completely seamless when I went to the IMAX screening. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

At which theater ? If there was no platter changeover, you were viewing it in Digital IMAX. Barry Wom (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was viewing it in Digital IMAX. BTW did the platter changeover happen when you went? --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Digital IMAX has no restrictions on the film length. Platters are only relevant for 70mm IMAX screenings. Barry Wom (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
If you went to a 15/70 screening, can you recall what the platter changeover point was? Thanks! --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the platter changeover was at the same break point as in the VHS and the DVD Special Edition, i.e. at the line "Well I believe you may get your headlines, Mr. Ismay". A total of five 15/70 prints were struck - three for the US, one for London and one for Sydney. Barry Wom (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

IMAX vs. Imax[edit]

If "IMAX" is a contraction of "image maximum," and not an acronym or initialism, then, per WP:MOSCAPS, shouldn't it be spelled "Imax"? Trivialist (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

IMAX 3D theater in Indonesia[edit]

Indonesia has an IMAX 3D theater and launched for the first time The Avengers in certainly IMAX 3D without using any spectacles, Indonesia has also many 3D theaters (not IMAX) with English version and/or Indonesian subtitle version with using spectacles, moreover Indonesia has many many more 2D theaters. So, we can differentiate any of The Avengers versions. I don't know The Avengers versions in the other countries. Hopefully, it will make clear about The Avengers in IMAX 3D. The Avengers film is taken by Movie Film Cameras, Digital Film Cameras and HDSLR cameras all in 2D first and then make them into 3D and IMAX 3D (2D to 3D conversion).Gsarwa (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, The Avengers was indeed filmed in 2-D and converted to 3-D. It was also shown in Digital IMAX in 3-D. However, unlike films like Avatar and Prometheus, there were no IMAX film prints struck. Barry Wom (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Reception of IMAX films[edit]

I'd like to see a section on the reception of IMAX films, if the spectator views them differently, if the impact is different, if people tend to go to IMAX venues more than non-IMAX. Was there a poll conducted on the IMAX? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.62.242 (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Source for claim?[edit]

"Another disadvantage is a lower resolution than normal IMAX film, estimated to be about 12,000 × 8,700 theoretical pixels or 6,120 × 4,500 actually discernible pixels (27 megapixels)"

Source doesn't explain how it got this figure --Randomoneh (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I believe that there's some correlation between it and another detail, mention of "about 6 microns". Assuming that the camera aperture is 70.41 x 52.63 mm, that would mean the exact theoretical resolution would be 11,735 x 8772, which is close enough to the figure the source reached for the theoretical resolution. Still doesn't explain the discernible resolution; the source says you might have to check out one of SMPTE's journals for that one. If I remember correctly, it was one of the 2004 journals. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Newer SMPTE journals have featured work by Japanese NHK in which they come to conclusion that healthy individuals quality increase up to ~200 pixels per degree of viewer's field of view.--Randomoneh (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Conversion to 3D[edit]

Star Trek Into Darkness is not the first film to have IMAX sequences post-converted to 3D. It has been done at least once before with Tron Legacy in 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.186.127 (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I heard that, too. Interestingly, I thought Star Trek Into Darkness had the best 3D I've seen yet in the theater. The post process may work better now than filming it. I also noticed, though, that they used special glasses that were both slightly anaglyph AND polarized. Man of Steel had much weaker 3D in comparison. -Benjamin Goulart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.188.98 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sonics-DDP sound system[edit]

The article doesn't seem to mention some of the sound technology or design used with IMAX, Sonics-DDP. More info here (List of films with "Sonics-DDP" sound mix) and here ("In 1988, Imax acquired Sonics Associates Inc. as an affiliate. Alabama based Sonics is a world leader in sound system design and offers customers the benefits of more than 26 years of research and hands-on experience in the IMAX theatre network."). -- Katana (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Inferior Sound on the New Mass IMAX Digital Installs Compared to Conventional Auditoriums?[edit]

Why does IMAX have so much difficulty with dialogue? I've noticed this in multiple of the newer digital and 3D IMAX auditoriums, and at the same cineplex's non-IMAX theaters I find the sound quality actually more pleasant. New IMAX installs seem to be designed purely for dynamics, yet without a capability for nuance or delicacy. The midrange often seems brash, shouty, and inarticulate. I have no problem in THX, DD 24/96, DTS, or SDDS-rated auditoriums from any of the major install/theater chains. In fact, I find the non-IMAX ones superior. We missed seeing Pacific Rim in IMAX 3D, and yet once again I was shocked how much better the 2D non-IMAX was. And I’m an audiophile and DJ with a great many hi-fi and pro speakers, headphones, amps, and source components. Considering the human ear/brain system hears best and flattest in the 85dB c-weighted range, IMAX having the superior SPL capability may be a waste of tailoring the sound system to one aspect while neglecting the rest of sonic characteristics. Furthermore, theater sound in the other formats is so highly standardized and the mixing studios are of such high caliber for them (such as Sony's), that IMAX might not be translating even as intended. -Benjamin Goulart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.188.98 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

History section[edit]

At the end of this section, it is stated that China is the second largest market for IMAX outside the USA and has 25 IMAX cinemas. This is not correct, the second largest market is the European Union (there are 26 IMAX cinemas in the United Kingdom alone according to IMAX.com).

Not sure why this comment is even relevant to the History section. Shall we correct or delete it?! Zctyp18 (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)