IMAX

[starjackson1]

Richard -

Thanks for explaining the costs associated with IMAX Theaters,
including the special projection equipment needs, space needs, etc.  I
had no idea!

I saw GOF in the *brand new* fancy multiplex theater near where I
live, and the sound quality was not as good as IMAX.  And, I don't
know why, but I caught a lot more detail and dialog in the IMAX
version.   A bigger screen does help.

My coworker, who saw the IMAX version with me, said that she didn't
think GOF was filmed with IMAX in mind, because she didn't feel there
were a lot of 3-D visuals in the movie (she loved the film however). I
would have to agree with her, because naturally 99% of the movie goers
will see the film on a regular multiplex screen, so why bother to
shoot the film especifically for a certain format?  

I, for my part, will definately go to see the next HP film in IMAX!
Perhaps once in the multiplex cinema, and the rest in the IMAX, even
if I have to wait several weeks for the film to get there!

--- In HPFGU-Movie at yahoogroups.com, Richard <hp at p...> wrote:
>
> I've not had time to post much lately, but would like to add a few
thoughts 
> to several recent threads. I also have a backlog of over 200 older
posts 
> which I have earmarked for replies, but don't know if I'll ever have
the 
> time if traffic continues at recent levels, but I'll try...
> 
> I'm not going to quote any specific posts before replying (there
have been 
> hundreds on the subject!), but regarding IMAX....
> 
> Considering some of the contributions, I seriously (and I mean
*SERIOUSLY*) 
> wonder what the technical quality of projection in the average American 
> cinema is like, given that so many people have mentioned details they 
> couldn't see or hear otherwise. I find this truly baffling, because
nothing 
> that's been pointed out was news to me, who's only seen it in my local 
> multiplex.
> 
> I saw PoA in IMAX (with a bunch of other HPFGU people) when it was on 
> (having seen it over a dozen times in the regular cinema; I'd seen IMAX 
> movies before, but only those specifically mad for the format), and was 
> expecting to be bowled over and to be able to see lots of clear
details I'd 
> not noticed before: frankly, I was underwhelmed and while the
picture was 
> *marginally* clearer than otherwise, it wasn't such a great improvement 
> that I could see things I'd not noticed before.
> 
> Incidentally, in answer to Starjackson's question, to say that
multiplexes 
> having IMAX screens would be "expensive" is an understatement of
massive 
> proportions. The auditorium would have to be built especially,
taking up 
> the space of at least two large "standard" screens for roughly half the 
> audience per screening, and the technical specs of the projection
equipment 
> are such that a specialist projectionist would need to be employed to 
> service the IMAX screen alone. And then there's  the cost of the
prints, 
> which cost about three times the price of a standard print to produce 
> (although theoretically these should last longer as the film doesn't
get 
> scratched as much).
> 
> In other words, it simply wouldn't make financial sense for a multiplex 
> operator to provide IMAX screens in their multiplexes, and only
absolutely 
> sure-fire hits (of which, apart from HP or Star Wars, there are
none) would 
> warrant the extra expense in providing vastly expensive prints for a 
> limited audience.
> 
> Judging by the comments elsewhere, my own view is that it seems that 
> American cinemas would have much more to gain by providing decent
technical 
> facilities for their general audiences which would cost a fraction
of the 
> price.
> 
> --
> Richard, who's sad that GoF has now disappeared from his local
multiplex 
> and saw it for what will probably be the last time in the cinema
yesterday 
> - in the company of three other people...
>