Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2009 > June > 22 > Entry
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
Comments
By SRCputt
June 23, 2009 7:52 PM | Link to this
What has happened in Columbus is even more confusing. In the late 90s the Marcus theater chain opened a 17 screen complex with one of the screens a legitimate IMAX screen. It is where I saw Everest, Fantasia 2000, and the rerelease of Beauty and the Beast. But for some reason Marcus severed their ties with IMAX and changed the theater into what they call “Ultrascreen”. The website states the screen is now at a 2.35 to 1 standard ratio. I don’t know, I haven’t been since the IMAX name was dropped. But I doubt seeing Transformers 2 there would gain the viewer the IMAX cut. (What were they playing last weekend? The Proposal.) Also in Columbus is the COSI Extreme Screen Theater, never alligned with IMAX, but for me it was a pretty similar experience. It’s at a museum, so the films are more the traditional type of IMAX film. According to the COSI website, the screen is 83 feet wide and 61 feet high. So, pretty big. But I’m not sure how exactly it compares to true IMAX.By SRCputt
June 23, 2009 7:33 PM | Link to this
I’m home sick, so I’ve been slow to write up my comments. Personally, my first experience with IMAX was at Seattle’s Pacific Science Center as well, and a year or two later at the Smithsonian. My experience at the Air Force Museum was similar. While the Springdale (Cincinnati) and Lennox (Columbus) screens are better than a regular theatre, and I have had good experiences at both, they aren’t true IMAX. And the idea that Newport has a big enough screen is ridiculous.By Sir Critic
June 23, 2009 8:23 AM | Link to this
Thank you for the compliment, Jon. As for the museum, no, they don’t show Hollywood feature films. They stick to aviation-related educational films filed in the IMAX format. If Dayton were ever to get its own IMAX theater for Hollywood fare, it would almost certainly be one of the “fakes.”By jon
June 22, 2009 7:30 PM | Link to this
I can’t believe a DDN reporter wrote such an informative article. Nice piece! Does anyone know if the show just released Motion Pictures (like Transformers)at the Air Force museum?By truthdetector
June 22, 2009 4:27 PM | Link to this
Sadly, this kind of ‘cheating’ goes on all the time in retail stores. Today you buy the large size soda for $1.40 and you get 24 ounces. Next week, you buy the same large soda for $1.40 but only get 23 or 23.5 ounces. And down it goes. Often it’s true that the consumer doesn’t notice the size difference but will notice a price difference. If IMAX and AlmostIMAX both charge the same, and the screen is not the same size, and the audio quality is not the same, then it’s not the same product and the smaller one is cheating.By Kenny D.
June 22, 2009 2:34 PM | Link to this
I would simply like to see some published definition of what IMAX means for viewing such movies at theaters with the smaller screens, similar to THX specifications. Without that information for both the movie AND theater, it seems like another way to charge me more money without any guaranteed return.By Allie D.
June 22, 2009 2:24 PM | Link to this
Cheated? Yes. We have a “LIEmax” screen at our movie theater, and the tickets are $14, about the same price as the real deal up at the Seattle Pacific Science Center. If I’m paying the same price for something less, that feels like a cheat to me. I’m more about simply watching the movie than about it looking and sounding its optimal best, though I do agree with you about full-screen and stretched images. But if the aspect ratio is correct, the brightness is right, and the sound is good, then I’m happy. I just don’t know if it’s worth nearly doubling the price of my ticket to see it in a format that is not like the real IMAX. The genuine article is exhilarating, and I have loved every experience I’ve ever had in an IMAX theater. This feels like nothing more than a way for theaters to raise revenue, to simply take an existing theater and put in a new projector, and paste the word IMAX on it and raising ticket prices to exorbitant levels. It’s fine if other people want to buy it, but I’m not quite so quick to.