|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IMAX article.|
|WikiProject Film||(Rated C-class)|
- 1 Digital IMAX screen sizes
- 2 Digital Backlash? Better name for section?
- 3 Dimensions/Units
- 4 IMAX acronym
- 5 Caesar's Palace
- 6 Could we get a picture of
- 7 IMAX format vs. IMAX Corporation
- 8 Link to Showscan?
- 9 File:IMAXScreenComparison.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion
- 10 Titanic
- 11 IMAX vs. Imax
- 12 IMAX 3D theater in Indonesia
- 13 Reception of IMAX films
- 14 Source for claim?
- 15 Conversion to 3D
- 16 Sonics-DDP sound system
- 17 Inferior Sound on the New Mass IMAX Digital Installs Compared to Conventional Auditoriums?
- 18 History section
- 19 Conflicting descriptions of 65mm film feeding and speed
Digital IMAX screen sizes
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Digital Backlash? Better name for section?
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! 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
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. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
Could we get a picture of
IMAX format vs. IMAX Corporation
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.") 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- 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. 22:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Link to Showscan?
File:IMAXScreenComparison.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion
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
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.
- 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)
- 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
IMAX 3D theater in Indonesia
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
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Source for claim?
"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)"
- 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)
Conversion to 3D
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 126.96.36.199 (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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Sonics-DDP sound system
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?
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
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).
Conflicting descriptions of 65mm film feeding and speed
In the section "Analog technical aspects", under "Camera", it explains that:
To achieve such increased image resolution, 65mm film stock passes horizontally through the movie camera, 15 perforations at a time, resulting in a filming speed of 102.7 metres per minute. In a 65mm camera, the film passes vertically through the camera, 5.0 perforations at a time, resulting in a filming speed of 34 metres per minute."
Which is it? These explanations seem at odds with one another, given that they both describe how 65mm passes through a camera. Perhaps there's a type and the second sentence means to describe something other than a 65mm camera? Willgmcc (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)