First, let me say I was not at a "real" IMAX theater where you lie almost on your back and look up at a curved screen on the domed ceiling. This was a theater where everyone sat in a balcony and looked straight ahead at a tall horizontal screen.

It was immediately obvious this was not a real IMAX film, which I have seen several of at both kinds of theaters. It lacked IMAX clarity, it was obviously blown up too big and was grainy, in spite of any up-rezzing. You also had to look up to see the top half of the screen. OK for a short IMAX film, but a real pain in the neck for a two hour film. The sound was way too loud. I don't think I have permanent hearing loss, but I was concerned about it at the time. IMAX films may occasionally startle you with a blast of sound, but don't have full blast sound 100% of the time. The picture was also IMAX format = square, not wide screen as originally filmed, so I don't know what I missed.

If you haven't seen it, see it at a regular multiplex with a normal giant screen and normal loud surround sound. It will be a much less painful experience.

 Reply

Mark? Film is not made out of ink.

Perhaps I could write the next IMAX articles, seeing as how they live just around the corner from me in Mississauga (and I know what film is made out of).

 Reply

As you point out in detail in this fantastic article - the post production process would get pretty complicated as well. This could easily quadruple post cost, if not more. Think about the render farms necessary, the crazy machines the guys cranking AE, shake, etc would have to have in order to handle such massive files. I'd say our tech would need to catch up a lot first.

But, I applaud the article, fantastic.

 Reply

Umm. Don't you mean 35mm?

 Reply

I would have browned my pants.

 Reply

Ending the sarcasm for a moment, this is pretty impressive, and I would love to see the resulting shot.

 Reply