<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Imax? Isux</title>
	<atom:link href="http://livingincinema.com/2009/05/12/imax-isux/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://livingincinema.com/2009/05/12/imax-isux/</link>
	<description>Movie reviews, news and opinion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:23:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Grant Sutor Vuille</title>
		<link>http://livingincinema.com/2009/05/12/imax-isux/comment-page-1/#comment-53954</link>
		<dc:creator>Grant Sutor Vuille</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2009 20:14:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://livingincinema.com/?p=4760#comment-53954</guid>
		<description>Dear Movie Lovers:  IMAX digital projection is not really any different from a normal 35mm screening of any film that has digital sound.  It might be slightly sharper in it&#039;s subjective manipulated (i.e. DMR) appearance, but don&#039;t forget, it&#039;s just 2K resolution.  

Films that are digitally edited and scanned back onto 35mm print film are closer to 4K or even 6K, so a 35mm print will still, even though digitally processed, will always be sharper than fake IMAX digital @ 2K.  

35mm prints of films, not digitally edited or scanned digitally, but optically processed completely, will have resolutions of 8K and up.  However, massive contact printing of 35mm theatrical prints can lower that impressive apparent resolution of the 8K 35mm camera original  negative.

Fake IMAX digital (i.e. The &#039;Fake&#039; IMAX Experience) can look very good, but the screen is just average, and although the sound is top-notch (i.e. no argument there), but so is the sound in the other regular 35mm film theatres, even if their sound systems don&#039;t  peak out at 12,000 watts--so don&#039;t waste your money on Fake IMAX digital if it comes to a sharper image of presentation--go to Fake IMAX digital if you want to hear the biggest sound available--they top everyone else in sound specifications.  

. . . Go see a movie in RealD, 3D digitally projected, or a 35mm print of a film with digital DTS, Dolby Digital, or SDDS sound--if you like a big screen, why not just sit closer in the first few rows of the theatre?  

Bonus-wise, if it&#039;s a 35mm film presentation, and you&#039;re  very close to the screen, you won&#039;t see any digital artifacts such as pixilization, aliasing, or screen-door-digital-effects up close!

Sincerely, Grant Sutor Vuille</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Movie Lovers:  IMAX digital projection is not really any different from a normal 35mm screening of any film that has digital sound.  It might be slightly sharper in it&#8217;s subjective manipulated (i.e. DMR) appearance, but don&#8217;t forget, it&#8217;s just 2K resolution.  </p>
<p>Films that are digitally edited and scanned back onto 35mm print film are closer to 4K or even 6K, so a 35mm print will still, even though digitally processed, will always be sharper than fake IMAX digital @ 2K.  </p>
<p>35mm prints of films, not digitally edited or scanned digitally, but optically processed completely, will have resolutions of 8K and up.  However, massive contact printing of 35mm theatrical prints can lower that impressive apparent resolution of the 8K 35mm camera original  negative.</p>
<p>Fake IMAX digital (i.e. The &#8216;Fake&#8217; IMAX Experience) can look very good, but the screen is just average, and although the sound is top-notch (i.e. no argument there), but so is the sound in the other regular 35mm film theatres, even if their sound systems don&#8217;t  peak out at 12,000 watts&#8211;so don&#8217;t waste your money on Fake IMAX digital if it comes to a sharper image of presentation&#8211;go to Fake IMAX digital if you want to hear the biggest sound available&#8211;they top everyone else in sound specifications.  </p>
<p>. . . Go see a movie in RealD, 3D digitally projected, or a 35mm print of a film with digital DTS, Dolby Digital, or SDDS sound&#8211;if you like a big screen, why not just sit closer in the first few rows of the theatre?  </p>
<p>Bonus-wise, if it&#8217;s a 35mm film presentation, and you&#8217;re  very close to the screen, you won&#8217;t see any digital artifacts such as pixilization, aliasing, or screen-door-digital-effects up close!</p>
<p>Sincerely, Grant Sutor Vuille</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Kennedy</title>
		<link>http://livingincinema.com/2009/05/12/imax-isux/comment-page-1/#comment-53842</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Kennedy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 23:36:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://livingincinema.com/?p=4760#comment-53842</guid>
		<description>My guess is that what you saw was still pretty IMAXy unless the screen went up sometime in the last year. 

I think the first wave of cineplex IMAXs were a bit smaller than the original science center IMAXs but the new ones are barely bigger than a regular screen. These new ones are the ones that are causing all the gripes. I saw Shine a Light on a huge squarish screen and Watchmen on a perfectly ordinary looking screen.

If your screen was big enough for you to notice it being big, then that&#039;s all that matters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My guess is that what you saw was still pretty IMAXy unless the screen went up sometime in the last year. </p>
<p>I think the first wave of cineplex IMAXs were a bit smaller than the original science center IMAXs but the new ones are barely bigger than a regular screen. These new ones are the ones that are causing all the gripes. I saw Shine a Light on a huge squarish screen and Watchmen on a perfectly ordinary looking screen.</p>
<p>If your screen was big enough for you to notice it being big, then that&#8217;s all that matters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joel</title>
		<link>http://livingincinema.com/2009/05/12/imax-isux/comment-page-1/#comment-53839</link>
		<dc:creator>joel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 23:22:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://livingincinema.com/?p=4760#comment-53839</guid>
		<description>So apparently this whole ISUX debate has exposed some kind of odd subculture of rating IMAX theater experiences. I saw a link elsewhere to this &lt;a href=&#039;http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&amp;hl=en&amp;msa=0&amp;msid=113621990356540393221.000469b6c5915161c3667&amp;ll=36.207299,-86.693566&amp;spn=0.010787,0.019312&amp;t=h&amp;z=16&#039; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;barely scientific google map&lt;/a&gt; of Real vs. Fake IMAX theaters, which lead me to this more scientific (and slightly interesting) 
&lt;a href=&#039;http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm#OR&#039; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;database of IMAX theaters&lt;/a&gt; in the U.S., broken down by specific projection systems.

Why do I bring this up? Because I thought I saw The Dark Knight in true IMAX last Summer (along with Beowulf in IMAX 3D) but apparently I saw it in lowly, fake digital IMAX which isn&#039;t really IMAX.

Huh. Cause man, that screen was big and it sounded great. So I suppose the IMAX or ISUX is in the eye of the beholder, but I know now that I haven&#039;t seen anything in &quot;real&quot; IMAX since going to the Seattle Science Center OMNIdome as a grade schooler.

Maybe I&#039;ll try to catch a &quot;real&quot; IMAX movie the next time I&#039;m in Seattle, just to compare.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So apparently this whole ISUX debate has exposed some kind of odd subculture of rating IMAX theater experiences. I saw a link elsewhere to this <a href='http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&amp;hl=en&amp;msa=0&amp;msid=113621990356540393221.000469b6c5915161c3667&amp;ll=36.207299,-86.693566&amp;spn=0.010787,0.019312&amp;t=h&amp;z=16' rel="nofollow">barely scientific google map</a> of Real vs. Fake IMAX theaters, which lead me to this more scientific (and slightly interesting)<br />
<a href='http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm#OR' rel="nofollow">database of IMAX theaters</a> in the U.S., broken down by specific projection systems.</p>
<p>Why do I bring this up? Because I thought I saw The Dark Knight in true IMAX last Summer (along with Beowulf in IMAX 3D) but apparently I saw it in lowly, fake digital IMAX which isn&#8217;t really IMAX.</p>
<p>Huh. Cause man, that screen was big and it sounded great. So I suppose the IMAX or ISUX is in the eye of the beholder, but I know now that I haven&#8217;t seen anything in &#8220;real&#8221; IMAX since going to the Seattle Science Center OMNIdome as a grade schooler.</p>
<p>Maybe I&#8217;ll try to catch a &#8220;real&#8221; IMAX movie the next time I&#8217;m in Seattle, just to compare.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Kennedy</title>
		<link>http://livingincinema.com/2009/05/12/imax-isux/comment-page-1/#comment-53172</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Kennedy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 05:43:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://livingincinema.com/?p=4760#comment-53172</guid>
		<description>Well, sadly it appears Actionman didn&#039;t review it so now I&#039;ll never know what he liked so much about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, sadly it appears Actionman didn&#8217;t review it so now I&#8217;ll never know what he liked so much about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff McM</title>
		<link>http://livingincinema.com/2009/05/12/imax-isux/comment-page-1/#comment-53112</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff McM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 00:30:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://livingincinema.com/?p=4760#comment-53112</guid>
		<description>I chuckled at that movie, but I never need to see it again. And afterward, I kind of hated it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I chuckled at that movie, but I never need to see it again. And afterward, I kind of hated it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Kennedy</title>
		<link>http://livingincinema.com/2009/05/12/imax-isux/comment-page-1/#comment-53072</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Kennedy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 20:32:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://livingincinema.com/?p=4760#comment-53072</guid>
		<description>Why, is that Actionman of H-E comment thread fame??

Long time no see.

Whatever you think about Observe and Report, you have to admit that particular line was a high point, don&#039;t you?

Either way, what about the movie appealed to you? The trenchant satire? The humor?  Both fell completely flat for me, but I admit these things are objective and I acknowledge the film has some huge fans.  

I&#039;m guessing if I click over to your blog there will be a review waiting for me...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why, is that Actionman of H-E comment thread fame??</p>
<p>Long time no see.</p>
<p>Whatever you think about Observe and Report, you have to admit that particular line was a high point, don&#8217;t you?</p>
<p>Either way, what about the movie appealed to you? The trenchant satire? The humor?  Both fell completely flat for me, but I admit these things are objective and I acknowledge the film has some huge fans.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m guessing if I click over to your blog there will be a review waiting for me&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: actionman</title>
		<link>http://livingincinema.com/2009/05/12/imax-isux/comment-page-1/#comment-53068</link>
		<dc:creator>actionman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 20:21:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://livingincinema.com/?p=4760#comment-53068</guid>
		<description>nice sum up of Aziz&#039;s efforts, but you&#039;re way wrong on Observe and Report.  That movie was terrific.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>nice sum up of Aziz&#8217;s efforts, but you&#8217;re way wrong on Observe and Report.  That movie was terrific.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
