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!"


Ugh, I experienced just that at the movie theater in White Plains, NY when I went to see Watchmen in IMAX Digital. I thought I was going to be in for an experience like what I enjoyed when I went to see The Dark Knight at the IMAX in Universal City (HUGE screen), but instead I got a 35mm-sized screen. I was enraged, since there was literally no point to me paying five extra dollars for that ticket. I felt completely ripped off.
I gave the AMC 25 Imax screen a try a few months back and it was a complete disappointment. It was no different than seeing it on one of their large screens and they charge you for delivering almost nothing extra. I won’t be repeating that experience.
Great piece Nikki and certainly true regarding this entire over hyped IMAX format which is now being sneakily downsized. Reminds of supermarket downsizing, they try to sneak it in a bit where you may not notice it!!
Back in the glorious day of single screen theaters, it was standard to have a 30′ x 63′ screen in most theaters exceeding 1000 seats in almost every major chain such as General Cinema, Stanley Warner, etc. For more info on this, look at individual theater profiles on cinematreasures.com.
Thanks again for an eye opening piece the major media won’t touch!!!
IMAX got its hand caught in the b.o. till years ago when they were revealed to be showing IMAX films in OMNIMAX theatres, taking a 4×3 aspect ratio and splaying it across a wide, curved screen. Public and press didn’t know the difference then. They do now. Contrast this with Panavision, which made a distinction between saying “Panavision” as an anamorphic wide screen process and saying “filmed with Panavision equipment” on flat films. Very few theatres outside of LA actually care what their projection looks like, as LucasFilm’s TAP (Theatre Alignment Program) policed. Alas, IMAX reminds us once again that size matters.
Granted, Imax Digital is a bit of trickery on the part of Imax, but really hasn’t the past decade been filled with Imax fraud? Theaters have been selling tickets to regular movies blown up and projected on Imax screens for years, now. That, alone, waters down the Imax experience. Worse, I remember going to see Van Helsing at the Lincoln Square Lowes, and the image was 35mm that wasn’t blown up. True, the bigger crime was that I bought tickets to see Van Helsing, but, needless to say, I decided not to go see anymore “Imax” movies at that theater.
Kudos to Sumner Redstone — his theaters still have REAL Imax screens, notably at the Bridge Cinema De Lux down by the airport.
But man the “IMAX” (in name only) at Century City AMC is a friggin JOKE. Totally different experience than a real Imax.
I LOVE IMAX…. Nothing beats it… Every movie released in the format is heighten by it in my opinion…. 300, matrix reloaded/revolutions, Harry Potter, Superman, and Star Trek to name recent few…
I being someone who goes on opening weekend here in NYC and will wait 2 or 3 hours on a line to get good seats know what to expect when I see an IMAX movie…
All that being said I am also am one of the people who decided to try Eagle Eye at AMC 25 upon its “IMAX” opening… and was underwhelmed and almost insulted by the theater size and presentation…
It was in no way a true IMAX experience and I felt duped into a second rate viewing…. These smaller scale IMAX releases should rethink the way they are presenting them selfs to the market.
….. After seeing one “IMAX-light” film… I have sworn never to go back to AMC for IMAX features and have told others to do the same.
Thanks for posting this to give some insight into what happened there!
This happened to me this weekend. I purposely paid the extra $ to see Star Trek in imax at the AMC and couldn’t even tell the difference. People were complaining as we walked out of the theater. Definitely a rip off – I’ll probably still go see imax but will make sure from now on the sceen is the larger one. Though I shouldn’t considering their deceit.
I remember searching for the “Watchmen IMAX Experience” when it was sold out at The Bridge IMAX in Culver City. It showed two nearby AMC’s having IMAX theatres. I thought, “I never saw an IMAX screen in those new complexes?!” (And I never did as I haven’t gone once)
This is a real PR problem here. The IMAX corp announced in 2007 about many more venues on the horizon but I don’t think the public or filmmakers expected to see them do this. With the record breaking ticket sales this year I would expect AMC and Regal to invest in the real IMAX product for the future.
My wife and I saw Monsters v. Aliens in “IMAX 3-D” out in Simi Valley. But is was not the big screen we have all grown accustomed to. Sounds like they’ve found another way, besides concessions, to make money. Next week, I here Angels and Demons will be release in some theaters on FILM (requiring an extra $10 service charge.)
I actually went to the exact same AMC Aziz mentions, back in January when The Dark Knight was re-released in IMAX. When I entered the theatre I thought I was in the wrong one, having expected the large screen. I was disappointed to not get the true IMAX experience but I do have to say the picture quality was better than regular film and the sound was awesome.
But still, next time, I’m making sure it’s a real IMAX screen before ponying up the extra dough.
Could this be related to the AMC announcement of the purchase of a thousand Sony 4K projectors? If you had 4K projectors (ok, and 4K material to feed them!) then a big IMAX style screen makes sense.
glad i read this… was going to see trek at burbank. now i won’t. i was wondering how they got these big screens inside these already existing theaters… i had doubts. i hate liars.
http://gizmodo.com/5250625/cineplexes-getting-imax-but-is-it-really-imax
Check out this article on Gizmodo, it explains everything about the “mini-IMAX”
I saw Star Trek on IMAX and honestly, I didn’t see much of a difference between a regular movie and IMAX screen. Except that the screen was a little bigger and very loud! Didn’t help sitting next to the speaker. Anyway, I wasn’t impressed with the IMAX experience.
My wife and I were surprised to see our local AMC theatre in Emeryville, CA (just across the bay from SF) advertising “New Imax” theatre. We popped in before seeing our scheduled movie to look at this new Imax theatre. We’re frequent movie goers so we don’t recall any construction to modify the existing space.
To our surprise and anger at AMC, it looked liked any other theatre. Nothing like the IMAX screen in SF. Yelp your local theatre on reviews of these new “Imax” theaters before plucking down an extra $5.
After reading these comments I feel ripped off. I thought it was strange that my local theater said IMAX. A real IMAX theater has a totally different screen and architecture, doesn’t it?
I went to see “The Day the Earth Stood Still” in Regal’s paltry excuse for an IMAX theater. I paid the full ticket price of IMAX cos I wanted it to be pretty to look at – imagine my disappointment. Sure the sound was good, the picture wasn’t better than a standard projector, though, and I felt ripped off. This could backfire and make people associate IMAX with normal-screens that aren’t bigger and ticket prices that are. But I’ll gladly carry the ‘boycott-AMC-Regal’ banner.
So… Does this explain the numbers reported from last weekend, claiming Star Trek beat Dark Knight’s IMAX opening weekend record? I’m guessing the two movies opened on roughly the same number of true IMAX screens, but if AMC’s throwing these fake IMAX screens up at a rapid pace, and the money taken in for those screnings is being counted as “IMAX,” then it stands to reason that’s how Trek supposedly bested Dark Knight’s IMAX total.
I mean, I remember Dark Knight selling out showings and playing virtually around the clock all over the country (during it’s opening weekend) last summer. I haven’t heard the same thing about Star Trek (not to mention Trek, while opening strong, didn’t even match Wolverine’s overall opening weekend).
White Plains, NY Woot Woot!!!
The number for Century City’s AMC 15 customer service…
(310)277-2262
Now while its not the fault of the people who work there — it’s the corporate leadership — you can at least make your thoughts known about being ripped off.
You can contact the IMAX corporation to let them know you don’t appreciate their lying to their customers at…
Phone: 905-403-6500
Fax: 905-403-6450
(they’re in Canada.)
Email: info@imax.com
Got jipped too. At the very same theater. For Watchmen. I still enjoyed the film (really) but definitely felt cheated. It won’t happen again. Based on some comments, seems the Science Museum downtown is not the only “true” IMAX in L.A. Anybody has a list?
I was confused what all the fuss was about because I only go to the IMAX at The Bride (a true IMAX screen). Didn’t realize these other branded “IMAX Experience” auditoriums weren’t the real deal. What a rip!
4k Digital projectors won’t cut it. Full Size Imax is 8k.
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