UPDATE: Turns out that Aziz Ansari of Parks & Recreation started this ball rolling by twittering last night about what he calls these “fake IMAX” screens and urging a boycott of IMAX, AMC, and Regal theaters. “Don’t let them fool you. I went with a friend of mine to see Star Trek: The IMAX Experience at the AMC Theatre in Burbank today. I drove out of my way to see the film on the large IMAX screen and paid an extra $5 for the ticket, which felt worth it at the time. However, we get in the theatre and its just a slightly bigger than normal screen and not the usual standard huge 72 ft IMAX screen. I was very upset and apparently this problem is happening all over at Regal and AMC theatres. “REGAL, AMC, and IMAX – You are liars! Boycott them. Fuck them for taking advantage of people and charging them $5 extra. If you’re in LA, go to the Arclight from now on, and fuck the IMAX screens (fake and real).”
Here’s the background: AMC and Regal theaters have been advertising a new kind of IMAX experience, apparently duping people out of $5 for a screen that’s only slightly larger than a standard one. So claims an excellent article in LF Examiner, the independent journal of the large format motion picture industry. It chides the Imax Corp for not differentiating its new digital projection system in any way from the 15/70 film systems it has been installing in giant-screen theaters since 1970. This despite the fact that, according to Imax VP Larry O’Reilly, its two major digital partners, AMC Entertainment and Regal Entertainment Group, both originally wanted to brand the new screens as “IMAX Digital.”
But customers who pay $15 to see Eagle Eye: The IMAX Experience at New York City’s new AMC Empire 25 IMAX digital theater, with its 28 x 58-foot (8.5 x 18 meter) screen, ”see the IMAX name on the theater and have no idea until after their ticket has been torn and they walk into the auditorium that [the] screen is about the same size as the one in the adjacent 35mm auditorium, and less than a quarter the size of the one in the AMC Lincoln Square IMAX 15/70 theater, 26 blocks away. The screen in the older film theater is 76 x 98 feet (23 x 30 meters).
Richard Gelfond, co-CEO of Imax Corp, explains that the company feared an “IMAX Digital” brand might cast the older film-based theaters as “second-class citizens” in the public’s mind, since “digital” generally has connotations of “newer,” and “cooler.” ”It seems far more likely that the company was worried that ticket buyers who noticed the difference between the average 4,800 square-foot (450 square-meter) 15/70 film screen and a digital one 1,250 square feet (120 square-meters) in area wouldn’t return to the smaller if they could see the same movie on the larger. Widespread public preference for the “classic” experience would harm Imax’s return on the tens of millions of dollars it is investing in the 170+ joint venture deals it has signed… It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that even a very wide screen is not nearly as impressive as a one that towers six or eight stories high.
Concludes publisher/editor James Hyder, “I object when anyone claims that two patently different things are the same. Where I come from that’s known as ‘lying.’ And call me naïve, but I don’t believe that any company whose business plan is based on deceiving its customers can succeed with that strategy for very long. Imax Corporation, whose very name means “image maximum,” has spent four decades persuading the public that that name is synonymous with ‘big,’ with giant screens, with an experience that is completely unlike that of conventional multiplex cinema. If, for perfectly understandable business reasons, Imax now has to move into those smaller screens, let it distinguish this new product from the other screens in that theater, as a ‘premium multiplex experience.’ But expecting the ticket-buying public to believe that that experience is identical to one on a screen three or four times larger is insulting. People who have been to a true giant-screen theater will realize they have been misled, and will be disappointed, if not angry. Those who haven’t will wonder what the big deal about IMAX is, and will assume that any real giant-screen theater they come across in the future has nothing better to offer and perhaps never will have the real IMAX Experience….
“The tragic irony is that, forty years after Imax Corp. started trying to persuade Hollywood to shoot with IMAX cameras, the success of Chris Nolan’s The Dark Knight, the first to do so, has finally encouraged several other directors to follow suit. Three or four coming films may incorporate 15/70 footage. And yet, by the time these movies open, the majority of IMAX theaters may be digital screens with 1.9 aspect ratios that make the dramatic transitions in resolution and image size all but invisible. What a waste!”
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.


I’m shocked by this — Imax should mean the same thing all across the country.
Please voice your complaints to : Email: info@imax.com
The more people that complain, the better — the very least they should do is come up with another name — Imax Lite? This is insane.
This has being happening for years. I suppose they get away with the misleading advertising by saying the film will be presented on the IMAX screen leading one to believe it is an actually IMAX production. I personally don’t like to sit in these IMAX screening as the graphics displayed on screen are too big for me to truly enjoy what is happening on screen but to each his own. But on the other hand since IMAX is not doing all that well financially I suppose this is the way they keep their doors open, presenting a film on a bigger screen and collecting a premium price while at the same time not really offering one the IMAX experience.
My local AMC in Florida had some evening showings in “DLP digital”; same $7.50 though, that I saw, and since the pic wasn’t shot in IMAX anyway, why bother?
In fact, it wasn’t even shot with spherical lenses; there’s a focus pull about three quarters of the way through where the bokeh goes vertically elliptical, and you can tell that it was shot with scope lenses.
I’m not sure what I think about that…
IMAX also has a long history of (at best) barely breaking even, and providing negative return to shareholders, which may hint at why one-time principles would be sacrificed.
http://bit.ly/fipWd
Along with screenings in the low-end “IMAX MPX” digital theaters, I’d like to note the experience in the classic spherical IMAX Dome/Omnimax theaters.
Despite upcoverting, sharpening and other adjustments made to 35mm films during the “IMAX DMR” conversion, there’s no attempt in prints sent to dome theaters to compensate for the spherical surface — resulting in a rainbow-shaped letterbox that’s increasingly distorted toward the sides. The effect can be rather swimmy and nausea-inducing in a movie with as much rapid panning as Star Trek, and with so much back-and-forth dialog blocked at opposing sides of the screen.
It might be possible to compensate by having computers morph the letterbox shape printed on film frames to match the curved trapezoid shape that a classic fisheye IMAX camera would capture on film if it were used to photograph a rectangular screen in a traditional movie theater. Yet that would almost certainly be a costly and time-consuming process, both to develop and to perform on films, for a company that’s never really been rolling in dough. A 35mm motion picture already costs more than $2 million to run through the IMAX DMR process, according to IMAX.
The IMAX Dome screening I attended introduced several new locations to the Star Trek universe, including “OWA” and “ULCAN.” An IMAX Dome theater has a large surface to project on, and lacks the more reflective silver screen of a theater that supports IMAX 3D, resulting in a dimmer image with less contrast. This was a particular problem for all the shadow detail in The Dark Knight, but there’s no apparent attempt to gamma adjust the prints sent to older theaters.
As flat (well, flatter) IMAX screens began to outnumber dome-shaped theaters, filmmakers started to move the center of attention upward to the center of the frame, instead of the lower third of the frame that aligns with the “horizon line”/”center of optical axis” in an IMAX Dome theater. Consequently, viewing nearly any recent film in an IMAX Dome theater involves a fair amount of neck craning, only somewhat reduced in the highest seats at the back of the theater. Of all the seats in an IMAX Dome theater, only a small minority seem to be “good seats” these days.
At this point, the chief advantage of seeing any film in an IMAX Dome theater may be the surround sound. But over the next 20 years, as high-end computing power continues to become faster and less expensive, and as smaller, lighter digital cameras and brighter projectors climb toward UHDV and beyond, and as relevant IMAX patents expire, and perhaps the remaining shell of the company is bought by one or more studio(s), even garden variety YouTube-style video of the antics of toddlers and pets may surpass the quality IMAX has boasted for several decades. If the company realized this, it might instead focus ahead of time on bolstering its brand recognition.
In the meanwhile, we can probably all agree that giant, “flat screen,” analog, 3D-capable IMAX theaters are currently the best ones to search out to see pretty much anything promoted as IMAX.
I had a similar experience when the AMC theater complex at the mall in Columia, MD advertised that one of their auditoriums had been converted to IMAX. Since I really enjoy large-format presentations, I went to see “Monsters vs. Aliens – the 3D IMAX Experience” and paid the requisite $5 extra.
Well, it was in 3D. And it was Monsters vs. Aliens. But it was not IMAX except for the sound system. I should have known since I’d been there before the “conversion” took place and there was no noticeable difference from the outside except the big, blue IMAX sign on the building.
On the other subject of OMNIMAX presentations, we went to the one at the Great Lakes Science Center in Cleveland and watched several features in 3D including the Coral Reef Adventure and due to the extreme curvature of the screen – it ends at 90 degrees above your head and is 180 degrees horizontally – and the surround sound, we almost felt the need for oxygen tanks! It is much different in scope than the flat-screen model.
I agree that IMAX will be in trouble with the new IMAX-lite screens unless they stop charging for an IMAX presentation without delivering. I will continue to go to the original IMAX (fortunately, there are 3 in the Washington, DC area) but never again to the faux-IMAX at AMC, though it’s more convenient.
They really need to call it something else, because it turns off the people are used to the TRUE IMAX Experience. Please complain. I guess the only one in LA that is True IMAX is the Universal Citywalk and the only one in NY is Lincoln Square Loews — Please add if I’m wrong.
But again, please complain, this is not right and I mean it really is in the best interest of the company because a backlash will or already has happened.
I work for a smaller theater chain, and I’ve been making this argument against Hollywood films on IMAX screens for a few years now.
I paid to see the last Harry Potter film at a local (true) IMAX screen and was miffed when the feature was letterboxed. Since IMAX screens are only a few feet wider than the screens in my largest auditoriums I had essentially paid an extra $10 to see 20 minutes of crappy 3D. Never again. I will stay at my own place, where I can watch a similar sized screen in crisp clear digital.
IMAX is only worth it if the filmmaker uses IMAX equipment to film, as Nolan did with The Dark Knight. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors to suck you out of an extra $5 per ticket.
It’s all marketing, people.
IMAX used to mean 3 things: Giant resolution, Giant screen, and giant sound.
With the Hollywood blow-up films (portions of Dark Knight and a few shots in other films being the exception) they took away giant resolution and to some degree the giant screen. (The screen was there but not entirely utilized due to aspect ratio differences.) Now they are taking away the giant screen as well. Surely the public is going to start feeling scammed.
IMAX digital overlaps two Christie 2K digital cinema projectors on the screen. Supposedly (they won’t say exactly) they do some proprietary hocus pocus in terms of how the projectors are driven but it seems to be mostly a matter of increasing brightness and eliminating a visible pixel grid. But that doesn’t increase resolution.
If by some chance this meets with success with the public someone else ought to come up with a black box of their own and install paired projectors. Just come up with snazzy name with which to promote it and avoid IMAX’s considerable licensing fees.
As for 3D, an IMAX digital 3D presentation is simply 2-projector 3D with simple polarization and simple, passive glasses, something any theatre can do if they wish to spring for two digital projectors. Compared to the license fee for something like Real D, it might pay to do this.
While IMAX refuses to differentiate this system for the consumer, internally they call it IMAX Digital MPX. I have my own name for it: I call it IMAX-BOGU. No, I didn’t forget the S for “bogus.” It’s actually an acronym that stands for something I don’t think I should post on a G-rated website. But it starts with “bend over.”
I would feel cheated too. I am always overwhelmed by the size of the one at Liberty Science Center in NJ – they call it the nation’s largest — and would be disappointed to see IMAX films on a smaller screen. The “new” IMAX films are digital? So what? Everything is digital nowadays. I still like the old large film format.
Talk about unethical. Who the hell do these corporations think they are? What a piss poor business model. The word IMAX is synonmous with the word BIG, not slightly big from the norm. And I was going to go to the AMC on 42nd just try it out. Screw that shit. The backlash on this is going to be huge. I hope IMAX CORP. gets an earful on this one.
You’d think that IMAX would have learned from what happened to Cinerama Inc. after they stopped using the 3-Camera process and went to a single camera process that was really just Ultra Panavision 70 projected on a Cinerama screen. They failed!
This is a travesty. Instead of spending all that money on overpriced Sony digital projectors, they should simply be outputting the DMR material to 5 perf 65mm negatives and making 70mm 5 perf prints with DTS. The same experience would be achieved at a substantial reduction in wasted resources and cost.
For everyone who’s pissed off about this, a petition to AMC, Regal and IMAX has been started here:
http://bit.ly/liemaxpetition
Please sign it so they don’t keep cheating us like this.
I should mention that the fellow running the Google mapping site IMAX vs. LIEMAX indicates that he is going by screen size not digital versus film. I disagree with that method of distinguishing real vs. fake and this will take on new importance as some existing IMAX venues, probably those at multiplexes that show nothing but Hollywood product, drop the film projectors in favor of the digital system. Perhaps some already have.
A film-equipped theatre can show real shot-in-IMAX films at full resolution. The digital ones cannot, not at full resolution. Even if a film-equipped theatre only ever shows Hollywood blow-ups that doesn’t take away from the fact that the theatre has the capability.
I think if the digital projection existed last year and people heard raves about how great the true-IMAX parts of Dark Knight looked and then went down to their favorite previously-film, now-digital IMAX venue they would be sorely disappointed no matter how big the screen is.
For that reason I think the split should always be film vs. digital until such time as there really is a large format digital worthy of the name IMAX.
We also got ripped off ($15 each) after waiting over an hour in line (at the suggestion of the ticket seller) with the other early birds. We took one look at the screen and knew we’d been scammed. We took our seats and I thought the resolution of the film was not much better than conventional film. I think that IMAX is probably going bancrupt and this is their last resort. I will never attend another IMAX film again.
While the Fitchburg, WI, minIMAX screen is not the size of the one at the Smithsonian (I’d say about 25%), it is a true 1570 IMAX film projection system, which has played true IMAX films (normally morning runs before the Hollyweed feature starts for the day). The minIMAX term wasn’t coined by me, but it does fit the size of the screen. The auditorium was built from scratch. No retrofits. They couldn’t have built a real full-sized screen if they wanted to. The amount of land they had left wouldn’t allow for a wider screen
Even though the screen is smaller, the number of seats accordingly fits the screen size. With the screen being smaller, the image is even crisper. I’ve watched several Hollyweed films in that minIMAX stall and it beats the 35mm Marcus Ultrascreen, hands down. The latest flick being Star Trek (7th in line for the first showing Thursday night and I got my sweet spot location). They are 3D equipped as well.
Keep in mind, for Hollyweed action flicks, if the screen is too large, you are constantly jerking your head to follow the action. Star Trek is a prime example of a movie that fills the screen with action, as did Dark Knight.
I sure hope that IMAX-fake-crap doesn’t hurt the real film projection houses that are out here.
I certainly enjoy going to the one that is here in my city (2 miles away from where I live as well, and I drive by it when I go to work, so it is easy to get advanced tickets
.
I saw an Imax at the liberty science center it was awsome cause you where baisicly sitting in a ball
Screen size is only one component of the full IMAX experience. No other theatre in the world has digital projectors as powerful as those used in digital IMAX and the sound system used is far superior to that used in a standard theatre. Not to mention IMAX’s patented seating configuration, and science that goes into the design of every theatre with their name on it. Through this the experience in a IMAX digital theatre hardly differs from a traditional IMAX when these factors are analyzed and the ratio of screen which covers the vision of the patron.
The above comment was obviously written by an employee of IMAX trying to cover their asses. And this problem is just going to blow up with the release of Avatar. I just got back from seeing Avatar, and while the movie was amazing, the “IMAX experience” was underwhelming. The AMC screen seemed no bigger than normal and I was very disappointed, compared to when I saw Fantasia 2000 on a giant screen.
The problem is a bit worse than all that. Studios are actually pressuring IMAX into upgrading to digital 3D to lower their own costs of producing an IMAX movie. In the case of Avatar, they did have deals with IMAX theaters to release an actual IMAX version of Avatar, but in the end they never produced an IMAX print.
I only found out when I contacted the local IMAX asking them why it never showed near here. Here was the response I was given:
…….
“GuestServices”
Please accept our apologies for the disappointment. It’s a long story and I’ll try to shorten it.
For months the film company hyped the IMAX version of Avatar. They booked it with us and even gave us permission to sell tickets for the midnight opening.
About a week before the opening (and with lots of tickets being sold) they reversed themselves and said they were not going to provide us with an IMAX print of Avatar. We tried everything we could think of to get them to change their minds. We had our top guy contacting their top guy. They wouldn’t budge.
We ended up having to try to contact everyone who had purchased tickets for the midnight show and we had to refund every ticket purchased. It’s been ugly and believe me, not our doing. We are as disappointed as our guests who wanted to see Avatar in IMAX. Our hands are tied and we regret having to disappoint our valued guests.
The next movie on my radar for IMAX isn’t until March when Alice in Wonderland is due out in IMAX 3D. We hope we can show it but our fate is governed by the film companies.
Linda Gareau
Manager, Guest Services
…….
In a later e-mail it was clarified:
…….
“In the case of Avatar, the studio did not make any prints. The only theaters that are able to show it are digital — and that’s why there is not an IMAX print available. Our IMAX is not digital yet and may never be when you consider the outrageous cost to upgrade.
The only way we will be able to get Avatar in IMAX is if they decide to produce a print of it. Not likely, but who knows.”
…….
So to put this into perspective, Film Companies have the ability to release real IMAX prints but they have chosen instead to only release to Digital IMAX theaters which are of a lower quality, but cheaper. If we, the moviegoers, do not take a stand, then we face the very real prospect of seeing every IMAX turned into lower quality digital IMAX. Not because they want to, but because the film companies are forcing their hand.
We should boycott those who have upgraded, but not those who have not. We should send angry letters to film companies and insist they release ACTUAL IMAX prints.
Before we grab our pitchforks and head out to the local IMAX Theater…
I found a list (linked below) that compiles a large number of theatres that offer IMAX.
Within this list is a breakdown as to which Cinemas offers Digital IMAX with smaller screens, True IMAX with the industry standard 15/70 screens and ones that fall in the middle with 8/70 Screens.
This list also informs the public as to which Theaters also offer 3-D on their IMAX Screens as well.
I’m hoping this will squelch the argument of an IMAX conspiracy to bamboozle the public and theatre goers like myself can enjoy paying an extra few dollars for a quality that is still 50 times better than standard movie screens.
http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm#VA
REVISED/ADDITION:
Here’s a link that contains detailed data on large screen movie technologies from LF Examiner (Large Format Examiner, an independent journal of the large format motion industry), including IMAX of course, and: screen size, film size/process used, whether 3D/flat/dome screens, arranged by state & interactive search function.
http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm#NY
Read More http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/05/imax-ceo-screen-size-isnt-everything/#ixzz0j1rXWD5A
Lie max as know to the movie fanatics coupled with the fake three D is not worth the extra money they squeeze out of you
Don’t get me wrong great film but do not be fooled there are few I max theaters around and if you ever go to one you will be shocked the screen is triple the size of what you are sued to
I just saw Iron man three great film poor theater huge ticket price I feel that false advertising suit should be out there in some lawyers office class action sounds good to me