Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2009 > June > 22
Monday, June 22, 2009
My take on the IMAX/LIEMAX controversy
As most everyone knows, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen comes out this week, and you might be thinking about seeing it in IMAX, especially since parts of the movie were shot using IMAX cameras, like The Dark Knight was.
Thing is, depending on where you go, you may not be seeing it in “real” IMAX.
Last month, controversy boiled over when actor Aziz Ansari, wrote this blog post with righteous indignation, feeling he was cheated when he went to see an IMAX screening of Star Trek, and found the screen wasn’t nearly as big as the IMAX screens he was used to seeing.
Indeed, there are two types of IMAX screens. The “classic” IMAX, as seen at the Wright Patterson Air Force Museum in Dayton, is one of these. The screen measures about 76 by 97 feet, and has an aspect ratio of 1.33 to 1, the same as a standard television.
The newer type of IMAX screen, which you’ll find in commercial movie theaters as opposed to museums, measures about 28 by 58 feet and has an aspect ratio of about 1.85 to 1 - roughly the shape of a high-definition TV. This picture explains the difference (click to enlarge).
The IMAX at Newport on the Levee is one of the smaller kinds. The IMAX at the National Amusements in Springdale is a version called MPX, which I believe is larger than some of the newer installations, but still not as big as classic IMAX. Check out this map for a nationwide directory. Some people refer to this as “LIEMAX” and feel it’s a rip-off.
Now, I am very much a stickler when it comes to presentation of movies. I refuse to watch a movie panned and scanned, and I sneer at “fullscreen” DVDs when I see them on shelves. I’m also not fond of squashing and stretching a picture to make it “fit” on an HDTV so that people on the edges of the frame look like they should be linebackers for the NFL. The people who made these films certainly woudn’t want us to watch their movies that way.
So I’m rather surprised to find myself taking a somewhat conservative stance on the IMAX/LIEMAX brouhaha. I’ve seen a number of movies in the new kind of IMAX, and I’ve never felt cheated. Sure, the screen is smaller than the classic IMAX, but it is also notably larger than a conventional movie screen. The sound has much more kick to it too. I saw The Polar Express in IMAX 3D at Springdale, and it remains one of the top 10 moviegoing experiences of my life.
The key question for me is this: Are we cutting off image? In most cases of the new IMAX, I don’t believe so. Most movies are shot in 1.85 to 1 or 2.35 to 1, the latter of which is called Scope. In the case of Scope movies like Star Trek, you’ll see thin black bars on the top and bottom of the picture, just like you do on an HDTV. I saw Star Trek at the Springdale IMAX, and it looked and sounded great.
However, if the movie is shot partly in IMAX, as Dark Knight and Transformers:ROTF were, then there is a distinct possibility that image will be lost. The scenes shot with IMAX cameras have a ratio of 1.33 to 1. On some, if not all of the the new IMAX screens, the tops and bottoms of the image in those scenes might be cropped. If you want to see the full effect of a movie shot in the actual IMAX format, you have to catch in it classic IMAX.
Does all this matter to you? What has your experience with the “new” IMAX been? Do you feel cheated?
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions, Moviegoing
