Talk:IMAX

Film GA‑class

	Film portal 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 discussion 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Various early concerns

Should more attention be given to OMNIMAX, as it is a different film format, primarily found in science museums (ie. OMSI), and films released for it are usually educational.. Sunilonln 02:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I contacted an old friend who's stepfather helped plan the original OMNIMAX venue. I rewrote the IMAX Dome section based on the information he gave me. Rsduhamel 02:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was the matrix reloaded done on imax? is this unusual?

in NZ the only imax theatre shut down over a year ago. (there's not much demand for rollercoaster documentaries) Tristanb 01:20 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Matrix Reloaded" was indeed done in imax, just saw it myself last week. Hephaestos

I've added it to the page, as i'd consider it a big movie (though i haven't seen it). Tristanb

Not sure why someone decided to delete the listing of the movie "Haunted Castle" as a film released to IMAX, especially after I added it specifically to write the detailed linked entry, but I'm putting it back in.

Good on you. It looks like it may have been accidently deleted when someone was sorting them. Tristanb

Yes, probably my fault as I had a simultaneous edit and had to recombine; thought I got all the new list items back in but probably missed that one.Jgm 17:50, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the Cirque De Soleil as a "see also" listing -- by that logic we could add links to everything that's ever been a subject of an IMAX movie. Perhaps a compromise might be a line in the article mentioning the film and linking Cirque in situ. Jgm 17:53, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"conventional 70 mm systems were neither steady enough for the 586x magnification."

"Neither" in this sentence implies a later "nor" that never arrives. I suspect it was there originally and got edited out, but I've changed "neither" to "not" for grammatical regularity. Lee M 17:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes Episode II, no Episode III

It is interesting to note that Star Wars: Episode II went through the DMR process to show on IMAX, there seems no news about the same treatment to Episode III.

I have heard otherwise - the DMR process wasn't done by imax themselves and they don't consider it to be a proper imax presentation. Apprantly they just blowed up image from normal film to imax size, but since this wouldn't pass the imax visual tests (they do on every film) - they didn't want it branded as an official IMAX film. you might wanna check this out...having said that it could have been another film i got mixed up ...its definately happened a few times to some films..

Cinerama

Cinerama came first, followed by Vistavision and Cinemascope. The article implys it came later, which is incorrect.

This is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold!! Atlant 00:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They all were introduced within 2 years. It isn't a big difference in time and they are completely different processes. Rmhermen 04:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

List of venues on a separate page?

I see the list of IMAX venues growing more and more - I think that we should place it on a separate page, with maybe a max of 7 venues on the main page marked as "notable". What do other people think?

I am not sure we need any theaters on this page. How would you judge "notability"? Rmhermen 00:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I support this proposal - "notable" should be limited to the first, biggest, or, um. . . I don't know what other superlatives might apply; these would be easily covered in the text of the article and need not be in a list at all. Certainly any theater added to the list without comment is, by definition, not "notable". Jgm 14:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We currently have an entry labeled "one of the biggest IMAX domes" (selected by me), but as soon as we are sure which is the biggest dome, this entry should be replaced. Peter S. 11:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need seperate headings for each US state that contains IMAX theatres? GeeCee 19:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I made them bold mini-titles, therefore saving space and making the page less US-centric in appearance. Peter S. 21:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. Enjoy :-) Peter S. 17:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what's with removing IMAX Philippines from the list? Can someone explain to me why you don't want to add the location at Mall of Asia, Philippines?

Tagged as 'Confusing' August 2005

I'm wondering what this refers to. The article seems pretty readable to me. GeeCee 15:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the artile needs to be straightend up a little and needs more info on the company. I might add Infobox Company to the article. --michael180 15:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

But those are just typical opportunities for improvement and aren't things deserving a "confusing" tag. If you are going to improve the article, please just do so; adding such tags to a generally solid article just muddles things for potential users. Also, the infobox you've added is messed up, please fix or delete. Jgm 15:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a request with the company for more info for the box and a better logo to go in it. I just emailed them for information, and when I get their respose, I will add it. So, please don't delete it for a few days. --michael180 15:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, should we move the info box to the section Corperate Info? --michael180 15:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

No responce yet from IMAX Corp. --michael180 14:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Press kits are apparently available if you send an email to info@imax.com. http://www.imax.com/ImaxWeb/faq.do?param_section=faqExperience&param_subLeftSelect=experienceSelect GeeCee 01:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I sent them an email on Monday at that address. On Tue, I got a message saying my request was forwarded to someone. I will write them again. --michael180 15:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox moved temporarily to IMAX/Infobox--michael180 15:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Done and moved to article.--michael180 14:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Press citation

For anyone interested, Wikipedia (presumably this article) was cited as a source for a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article on IMAX technology: here (see the graphic, bottom left corner). Congrats to the editors. (This article may also be useful in editing our page.) Christopher Parham (talk) 05:34, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

Deleting Notable Venue's Section

What about deleting this section? I just seems that everyone has their own opinion as to what is notable, and it keeps getting changed. I think this is a matter of opinion and warrants removal? Suggestions/Comments?--Gephart 22:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think some aspects are interesting enough to warrant this section, like "biggest screen", "earliest theatre" etc. Peter S. 10:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Cash Cow"

Anyone know what a cash cow is?--Geppy 00:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Cash cow. Qutezuce 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dream Is Alive

Does anyone else think The Dream Is Alive deserves its own page on Wikipedia? IMAX is always quick to reference its success at the time of release, and it still stands today as a pretty decent time capsule of a time when things looked bright for the shuttle programme and NASA as a whole. --UD75 18:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many movies have their own pages. If you think The Dream Is Alive deserves one, then all that needs to happen is for someone (you?) to be bold and write the article! :Atlant 00:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, fair enough. --UD75 09:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DMR

It'd be nice if, above the list of films to be adapted to IMAX, it mentioned what 'DMR' stands for. Search 4 LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 04:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DMR actually stands for Digital Re-Mastering, as shown in the article. It was probably tagged DMR to avoid potential confusion with Digital Rights Managment (DRM).

Controversy

The "controversial" aspect of the documentary "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea" seems to have been about a certain part of the film's content, rather than the fact that it was filmed/shown as IMAX. That is, it would have been "controversial" for the same reasons regardless of format, unless there was something about IMAX that uniquely allowed the film to discuss the similarities between human and bacterial DNA. That said, does this paragraph really belong in this article at all, instead of in the article on the film? Jaeger5432 02:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Documentaries are much rarer in commercial theatres (Penguins and Michael Moore excepted) plus there common placement in locations where children frequently go on field trips where they might be forced to view such material, etc. I suppose you can make some arguments that Imax has a unique position. (Idon't know if these arguments were used or not.) Rmhermen 20:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The heading "Controversy" is not supported by the cited sources. One source is a first-person complaint posted on Space.com about the unavailability of this film at one IMAX location, which according to the editors of Space.com, was later shown (presumably negating the complaint.) The second source does not cite any controversy, but does document that "several" IMAX locations chose not to show the film. According to the quotations in that article, the film was not shown for local market demand consideration on the part of the local IMAX businesses. I propose that section should be renamed more appropriately, or removed entirely. Ptebault 23:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camera and Taking Lens Design

I'd love to see more mention of the camera and taking lens design. All I know about the subject is what I read years ago about the camera used on the Everest shoot in American Cinematography magazine and I don't have the article. I was especially impressed that they used standard Hasselblad/Carl Zeiss still camera lenses.

Highest grossing IMAX film

I removed the info in the list of IMAX films about which films were the highest and second highest grossing of all time since this seems to contradict it. Recury 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Sizes

Quote: "A standard IMAX screen is 22 m wide and 16 m high (72.6 x 52.8 ft), but can be larger." In Germany, the biggest screen (in Berlin) is 28 m wide and 21 m high. The other screens are not very much smaller. Is the size of "22 m to 16 m" really the average american screen size? 82.207.241.41 18:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC), who wrote big parts of the german IMAX article.[reply]