Talk:IMAX/Archive 1

Various early concerns

Should more attention be given to OMNIMAX, as it is a different film format, primarily 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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Cash Cow"

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

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

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)

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)

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

DMR

It'd be nice if, above the list of films to be adapted to IMAX, it mentioned what 'DMR' stands for. Search4Lancer 04:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

IMAX Magic Carpet

Quote: "# Futuroscope, France – theme park, only place containing all versions of IMAX theatres. (Normal, Dome, 3D, 3D Dome ("Solido") and IMAX Magic Carpet.)" What is Imax Magic Carpet?

It's two screens, one in front of the audience, the other below the audience. There is a glass floor to see the second screen. See also: IMAX Magic Carpet. Peter S. 23:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like In the Labyrinth at Expo 67 where the format debut.--Abebenjoe 04:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the (dual IMAX projector) Magic Carpet theater in Japan was a resurrection of the (dual 70mm) Theater One portion of the Labyrinth pavilion in Expo '67. Both the original and the improved version were produced by Roman Kroitor, who was recycling an idea using more modern (and more impressive) technology. AlatarK (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Widescreen?

Isn't an IMAX screen only slightly wider than a standard TV screen? How come there is no mention at all about the fact that regular movies that are shown on an IMAX screen are not in true widescreen? 69.203.64.174 00:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an immersive technology, so the concept of widescreen is immaterial. Do you care if the image is square, or a rectangle when the image takes up 180 degrees of your vision? No. So terms like 'widescreen' are redundant or even completely useless with this type of format.--Abebenjoe 04:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What? Just because the screen is very large, that doesn't mean aspect ratio no longer applies. 69.203.64.174 (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Because if you take the argument further, then IMAX would be considered "Highwidescreen" or equivalent. Conventional "Widescreen" takes the horizontal field-of-view (viewing angle) from roughly 50 degrees to about 65 or 70 degrees, but it does nothing to change the vertical field-of-view (i.e. height). IMAX has always been (at least) 75 degrees horizontal FOV -- thus wider than wide screen -- and increases the vertical angle by an even larger ratio. In short, IMAX is not primarily about big screens, it is about wide viewing angles -- both vertical and horizontal. AlatarK (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IMAX Theater.JPEG

Image:IMAX Theater.JPEG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IMAX Theater.JPEG

Image:IMAX Theater.JPEG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Other use" relevance

In regards to the Other uses of live music concerts, an unknown person commented "These uses have no particular relevance to IMAX as a product or a company." I removed this comment from the article an I place it here for discussion 198.53.250.185 20:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV: "IMAX 3D"

I only read the 3D section, but the phrasing there strikes me at being overly positive and unreflected - thus not conforming to WP's Neutral Point Of View. (Actually, it reads like being copied directly out of an IMAX sales presentation.) I would rephrase the section myself, but feel not fit enough in the English language and lack knowledge of the subject matter. --85.176.45.128 07:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What specific elements? Nothing is popping out at me. Girolamo Savonarola 11:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed most of it. Sorry for the confusion, I could've sworn a left a note here --lucid 11:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

First Permanent Imax Theater

I suspect that the current entry is in error. The first permanent Imax theater was the Cinesphere at Ontario Place, Toronto, Ontario, which opened in 1971.--Wee Charlie 16:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

65 mm?

Standard 5/70 films are shot on 65 mm negative because the 70 mm positive contains 5 mm of Soundtrack. But IMAX's 15/70 films are also shot on 65 mm negative although there ist no soundtrack on the 70 mm positive. Why? Can't it be filmed on 70 mm negative? 87.123.62.64 22:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC) (author of ~75% of the german IMAX article)

I don't know, but maybe there is a limited selection of 70mm negative film available, since the various other 65/70 cameras all use the 65mm negative format? Bealevideo (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked the guys of imax.com (vie e-mail). They answered that there exists no 70mm negative film nor is there any reason to develop such a product. 87.123.38.67 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not the lack of such film that is an issue. You're not understanding the fact that the 70mm print film carries the same perforations as 65mm stock. That extra 5mm is added as 2.5 mm extra down each edge and this was used for some of the magnetic tracks on regular 70mm 5-perf films (now largely superceded by DTS). That 5mm area is wasted on an IMAX print. If IMAX were shot on 70mm negative it would go to waste there as well as it's OUTSIDE the perfs so no point to it. It won't make the image area any larger.

If you could turn back the clock to when IMAX was first designed (and could envision its success) you could point out that they would be better off going with a 70mm negative (and 70mm print) that both have sprocket holes nearer the edge and gain some image area. But they went with what was commonly available which is 65mm negative & intermediate stock and 70mm (perforated with 65mm style perforations) print film.

As for the film stock, 70mm film with the perfs near the edge (some call it Type I although I don't know if that's accurate) does exist but is not used in motion picures and is not available with motion picture emulsions. However Kodak will make anything you want if you order enough to make it worth their while. Film is made in large widths and it's really no big deal for them to send some motion picture stock (like color negative and color print stock) through the slitting and perforating operation for that style 70mm instead of 65mm and 70mm-with-65mm-perforations. Just have to order enough and had things gone that way it would not be an issue anymore as I suspect that most of the 70mm they currently make is in fact used for IMAX. Perhaps the 65mm as well. But that's water under the bridge. IMAX uses 65mm negative and 70mm-with-65mm-perforations print stock which are standard in the movie world.Filmteknik (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course 70mm negative exists. This is how interposes, internegs, and release prints are made. What does not exist is a mass production camera with 70mm rollers. (At least one exists as it was built by an inventor; I don't recall his name.) The 65mm negative is optically printed onto 70mm printstock. The only commercially available film stock in 70mm is print stock; shooting this type of film results in very strange, at times beautiful, but definitely avant-garde imagery. I've done it myself on 16mm film, and it can easily be done with 35mm. Even if one were able to shoot 70mm with a camera, to process the print stock as a negative and to run it through the machines would cost an exorbitant amount of money because the film lab would be required to interrupt their daily processing to switch out every roller with 70mm rollers. It *can* be done, I have asked labs about this. But I was not about to shell out the dough. (I was not using a 70mm camera either.) Hope this helps! —Keraunoscopia (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Isnt IMAX sydney the biggest screen

Isnt the LG IMAX sydney screen the biggest in the world? RiseDarthVader (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind I just checked the list RiseDarthVader (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The LG IMAX theater in Sydney has a screen size of 36x28m. (That's what the Guinness Book of Records says.) 87.123.38.67 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The picture: Inside Luxor 1

The last picture is really in a poor quality. Blurred.

Screen picture?

Can we get a picture of the freakin screen? added by User:204.152.235.217 11:25, July 21, 2008

There are a wide variety of screens, screen sizes, and shapes. Which one would we use? A image would also have to show something to give a proper sense of scale. Rmhermen (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Largest dome

the article says that the largest dome is in liberty science center, new jersey. even the official website of the liberty science center claims the dome to be only the "nation's largest" and not the "world's largest".

imax adlabs in mumbai claims to be the "largest dome in the world" with an area of 12,700 sq. ft. http://www.adlabscinemas.com/imax.asp If anyone can find out the the screen area of the dome at liberty science center from an authentic source, and it is found to be larger, we could revert back to the earlier revision.

the screen size of the theater in new zealand which is reported as the largest theater is a little more than 1050 sq. meter. whereas that of imax adlabs works out to around 1179 sq. meters. So imax adlabs would also qualify for the largest screen in the world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijayraman (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed from the article the assertions about the theater in Mumbai and Sydney. The cited source is a self-published source, which is inappropriate. If an assertion is made about a given person or organization being a record holder, you don't cite that person or group themselves as the source, since that could be seen a clear conflict of interest, and possibly self-aggrandizement. You need a secondary or tertiary source for such a thing. And that source never mention Mumbai at all. As for the adlabs thing mentioned above, it appears to be a dead link. If anyone wants to re-add it, that's fine, but only if a reliable, third party, verifiable source can be cited in support of it.

Btw, links should simply be written out, or used with single brackets. Using the <ref> tags will cause them to appear as footnotes, but the information will not show up at the bottom of the page because there's no reflist tag there to cause it to. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

biggest screen

whats the biggest IMAX screen in the world and where is it? as the Odeon in Manchester UK claims to have the biggest screen in the world, whereas the BFI in london UK claims to have the biggest IMAX screen in the UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.27.8 (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs an actual picture of the screen

For some reason this article has several pictures of the outside of an IMAX theater, but none showing the interior, not to mention the actual screen itself. Speaking as someone who has never been to an IMAX theater I found this to be a significant drawback of the article. I would recommend removing some of the exterior pictures and adding some of the interior. -Rolypolyman (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

-This might pose a challenge, since many movie theatres probably prohibit the taking of pictures inside their buildings. I suppose a special arrangement should be made with *an* IMAX theatre that agrees to have their screens photographed and being uploaded here on Wikipedia. Anyone up for a challenge? Iceman B (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I disagree with the proposed merge of this article with Imax Corporation. We need a main article about the film format as well as an article about the corporation. As you can see, this article is already quite lengthy. It would be unwieldy to import the text about the company and its financial history, etc., into this article. Granted, the corporate article is a mere stub now, but I believe the best course is to expand that article, not merge it into the film format article. 199.84.162.114 (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above user. There's no need to merge the articles, unless the article on the IMAX format is turned into a section within the IMAXCorp article. So, unless the format becomes a section in the company's article, then the merge should be dropped. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

IMAX vs Digital Cinema?

Is anyone capable of doing a technical comparison between the video resolution of IMAX and that of a digitally shot movie? I ask this because I'm wondering, simply put, what technology offers the best image quality. Or is moot since movies are either IMAX or shot digitally but not both? Don't know if that's actually true, I'm waiting to see what formats the upcoming 6th Harry Potter movie will be in. Iceman B (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

well considering that there are very few film makers that claim that digital cameras has better image quality than 35mm film cameras I doubt that there is anyone that claim that digital is better than IMAX and for your information high resolution isn't the same thing as good image quality in a camera, a lot of people seems think it's so theese days. But if you want to compare the resolution I think fine grain film can record about 160 lines per mm with a really good lens so IMAX is over 7000 lines in hight and most digital cameras are 1080 pixels in height so they probably record less than 1000 lines in hight. Note that camera resolution can not be meassured in pixels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.209.12.82 (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to "IWERKS"?

The Brevard Community College planetarium facility in Cocoa, FL, has an "IWERKS" theater that supposedly projects IMAX-format movies (or something similar) on a 3-story screen. The big difference between it and the only other IMAX theaters I've seen (which would be at Kennedy Space Center) is the seating format; the former uses a more traditional seating scheme, rather than the tall, up-close version.

Does anyone know if this is related and, therefore, should be included in this article? --Joe Sewell (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well here's the thing. I don't know if particular venues need be discussed but it would definitely be worth adding a section about intellectual property issues regarding IMAX. The Rolling Loop projector was protected by patent going back to the original Australian invention. But the patent expired which enabled others to use the same technology. IWERKS sold such a competitive 15/70 projector. I do recall that someone was sued by IMAX claiming violation of trade secrets because someone had gained access to an IMAX machine and taken photographs and measurements of it. My recollection is that IMAX lost. Thus there are in fact non-IMAX 15/70 projectors. One could split hairs and say they don't belong in an article about IMAX but that's silly. There is also the matters regarding IMAX distribution of 15/70 films and whether they are available to theatres that employ non-IMAX projectors.

Oh yeah...be aware that IWERKS sold other large format projectors such as 70mm 8 perf which is a similar aspect ratio as IMAX but a simpler, less expensive projector. Some 15/70 films have been printed down to this format. I'd bet a community college planetarium is more likely to have that than 15/70. Filmteknik (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

IIRC the industrial espionage incident was related to Showscan and I also seem to recall that Imax won (although they had more trouble with Iwerks in the long term). AlatarK (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolution

ok, I realize that IMAX uses 15/70 film, but whats the DPI/PPI or overall number of pixels in an IMAX film. as far as i know this isn't mentioned in the article. Charwinger21 (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The IMAX format is film not digital so it doesn't have pixels and image resolution can not be measured in pixels so there isn't really any reason to mention how many pixels IMAX is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.209.12.82 (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I didn't mean what the DPI is, I meant what resolution would be required in a digital film to get the same quality as IMAX. Charwinger21 (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely controversial issue at the moment. I work in this field every day and I believe the current consensus is that film-based IMAX is certainly superior to a digital system with 5K horizontal resolution (i.e. 5144 x 3858) and that 16K digital -- when it exists, and assuming the dynamic range is improved -- will probably be superior to film-based IMAX. Within those two extemes, there is a lot of range to argue -- and a lot of argument. AlatarK (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you very much AlatarK :) Charwinger21 (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

IMAX MPX

The article is missing mention of IMAX MPX, a theater system devised for adaptation of multiplex theaters into IMAX theaters. MPX is mentioned here. I don't have time to add the mention myself, but will do so if I get the time and nobody else has done it by then. --uKER (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done --uKER (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

IMAX acronym

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)

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! 66.234.52.121 (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 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. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Gsarwa, are you saying that you watched The Avengers in IMAX 3D without glasses or just that the movie was not filmed in 3D but converted to 3D? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Paris Parc de la Villette La Géode 05.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Screen size IMAX Leonberg

the mentioned size is wrong. they changed the information on Traumpalast Leonberg website, see the current source link 2003:D2:8F25:7400:23:2B23:6647:3EAC (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Job

is there any job opportunity available ? Please inform me. 49.37.131.46 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

70×48mm not quit right

If IMAX is standard 70mm film ran horizontaly, then the aspect ratio of 4:3 can't be 70×48mm, it should be 90×70mm. Or am I missing something here? Natsukian (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The film used in the camera is 65mm wide. The perforations on both sides reduce the height further. Barry Wom (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)