How is Gravity on IMAX (3D)?

I’ve typically been unimpressed with movies on IMAX - the screen is actually too large to digest everything on the screen, and that holds true for 3D movies. But the 3D that I’ve seen in IMAX wasn’t very good to start with - Spider-Man 3, for example.

So for those who have either seen it on IMAX or IMAX 3D, what were your impressions? Was it worth the extra cash?

If you have physical issues with 3D and that option is off the table, maybe mention whether you saw it on IMAX or a regular screen, and if you’d have preferred the other option.

Be warned that “IMAX 3D” doesn’t mean that you’re going to be seeing it on a large, IMAX-sized screen. It just means that they’re going to be using the IMAX polarization technology to get the 3D effect, instead of the newer and superior RealD technology. It’s a separate question whether you want to see it in 3D or not, but if you do, just go with RealD.

My friend saw it in imax 3-D and was completely blown away. He recommended seeing it on the biggest screen possible.

Same here, saw it in RealD 3D Xtreme and actually flinched and ducked once or twice. I usually hate 3D but this movie made it awesome.

Stunning. go out of your way to see it in IMAX if you can; even if it’s the smaller screen it is still the higher resolution. Among its other staggering aspects, it may be the best use of 3D yet.

As far as I can tell, it was playing only in 3D in my area - regular “digital” and IMAX.

Thanks for the info. So “RealD” is the real deal? Excellent - that’s our usual theater.

Overall the movie didn’t live up to my expectations. But I did see in in IMAX 3D and it was visually stunning - it had a very immersive effect.

It did cost me $20 though, so as to whether it is worth it YMMV.

Sorry to contradict you, Chronos, but it’s not that simple. You are right about two things: 1) the screens in most multiplex IMAX theaters are smaller than the true giant screens in museums that most of us think of as IMAX, and 2) RealD’s circular polarizers are better than the IMAX linear ones. In IMAX, if you tilt your head from the vertical, you get ghosting, which doesn’t happen with RealD’s glasses.

But apart from that, it’s not true that RealD’s technology is generally superior to IMAX.

First, there are several RealD systems: the original system, known as Z-Screen; the XL system, intended for larger screens; and the XLW (not shown on the linked page), which is for the largest screens.

Most multiplex theaters have the Z-Screen, which is less efficient than the other RealD systems. On top of that, many theater operators turn down the brightness on projector lamps to save power and lamp life. The result is that the images on many, if not most, RealD screens are quite dark. Hollywood’s official standard for screen brightness in 2D is 16 foot-Lamberts, and the industry’s unofficial “goal” for 3D is 6 fL, but most standard 3D screens are 3 fL or lower. (To make it worse, operators don’t always remove the polarizers when they show 2D films, so a movie in a RealD theater may be darker than it should be even when it’s not a 3D show!)

In contrast, IMAX digital theaters use two high-power projectors that are automatically aligned and calibrated every day. Image quality in an average IMAX digital theater will almost always be significantly better than that of an average RealD theater.

RealD’s XL and XLW systems are much better than the Z-Screen, and can begin to rival the quality of IMAX, but since most RealD installations are single-projector, and all IMAX systems have two, IMAX still has better brightness, resolution, and contrast than most RealD XL installations. Furthermore, I can pretty much guarantee that you will not be able to find out if a given RealD auditorium has Z-Screen or XL. The theater staff probably doesn’t know, and AFAIK, neither the theater chains nor RealD provide this info on their Web sites.

The only exception is what are called “Premium Large Format” (PLF) theaters. These are the chains’ in-house IMAX-like brands, and most use the RealD XL system. Regal has RPX, Cinemark has XD, Carmike has Big3D. Like IMAX, these are usually the largest screens in the location, and have brighter projectors, better sound, and other amenities like plush chairs. There is a up-charge for tickets, but it is usually smaller than for IMAX.

So if you want the best image, look for IMAX or your local chain’s PLF theater.

Well, maybe I’ve just gotten lucky with the theaters I go to, but I’ve never seen the brightness problem in RealD theaters.

Possibly, especially if you’re going to the more popular shows that are in the bigger auditoriums. But I think if you compared ordinary RealD with IMAX, you’d see a big difference.

And also for anyone interested, we’re only talking digital here. IMAX did not make any film prints for Gravity. If you saw Gravity in IMAX, you saw it in digital IMAX, which is very much not the same thing as film IMAX.

Yes, but these days only a handful of Hollywood films are released on IMAX film prints. About four or five a year, out of 20 or 30 films released to IMAX theaters. And that number will go down as theaters convert to digital. Within a year or so, there will be no IMAX film prints of any Hollywood films.

I saw Gravity in IMAX 3D digital, and it was pretty amazing on the 57-foot-wide screen at Red Rock Casino in Las Vegas.

I think it’ll be either 8 or 9 this year (depending on Ender’s Game) actually, but you’re right that the days of film IMAX are just about over. The vast majority of American IMAX theaters (not including the museum theaters) have already switched to digital or soon will. A number of those theaters, however, have actually kept their film projector on site for special cases like Star Trek Into Darkness that are shot with IMAX cameras.

But no doubt, the end of film is basically here already.

I haven’t seen Gravity yet (in any format), but my best memory of IMAX was an IMAX 3D of the Space Shuttle and ISS filmed around 2001 or so, which was AWESOME, it really made me feel like I was actually there in space. So I’m really looking forward to Gravity in IMAX 3D.

QUOTE=commasense;16742573]Sorry to contradict you, Chronos, but it’s not that simple. You are right about two things: 1) the screens in most multiplex IMAX theaters are smaller than the true giant screens in museums that most of us think of as IMAX, and 2) RealD’s circular polarizers are better than the IMAX linear ones. In IMAX, if you tilt your head from the vertical, you get ghosting, which doesn’t happen with RealD’s glasses.

But apart from that, it’s not true that RealD’s technology is generally superior to IMAX.

First, there are several RealD systems: the original system, known as Z-Screen; the XL system, intended for larger screens; and the XLW (not shown on the linked page), which is for the largest screens.

Most multiplex theaters have the Z-Screen, which is less efficient than the other RealD systems. On top of that, many theater operators turn down the brightness on projector lamps to save power and lamp life. The result is that the images on many, if not most, RealD screens are quite dark. Hollywood’s official standard for screen brightness in 2D is 16 foot-Lamberts, and the industry’s unofficial “goal” for 3D is 6 fL, but most standard 3D screens are 3 fL or lower. (To make it worse, operators don’t always remove the polarizers when they show 2D films, so a movie in a RealD theater may be darker than it should be even when it’s not a 3D show!)

In contrast, IMAX digital theaters use two high-power projectors that are automatically aligned and calibrated every day. Image quality in an average IMAX digital theater will almost always be significantly better than that of an average RealD theater.

RealD’s XL and XLW systems are much better than the Z-Screen, and can begin to rival the quality of IMAX, but since most RealD installations are single-projector, and all IMAX systems have two, IMAX still has better brightness, resolution, and contrast than most RealD XL installations. Furthermore, I can pretty much guarantee that you will not be able to find out if a given RealD auditorium has Z-Screen or XL. The theater staff probably doesn’t know, and AFAIK, neither the theater chains nor RealD provide this info on their Web sites.

The only exception is what are called “Premium Large Format” (PLF) theaters. These are the chains’ in-house IMAX-like brands, and most use the RealD XL system. Regal has RPX, Cinemark has XD, Carmike has Big3D. Like IMAX, these are usually the largest screens in the location, and have brighter projectors, better sound, and other amenities like plush chairs. There is a up-charge for tickets, but it is usually smaller than for IMAX.

So if you want the best image, look for IMAX or your local chain’s PLF theater.
[/QUOTE]

Most of your information is close, but not quite right.

Real D:

Real D systems: Z-screen, XL, XLW, and XLS

The z-screen is the first digital 3D system developed, and was incredibly popular. The Development of this technology went hand in hand with pioneering the digital 3D revolution and established Real D as the name in Digital 3D after 3 years of working with Digital projector manufactures and scrambling to meet Disney mark for 100 digital 3D screens for the release of “Chicken Little” (Feb 2006)… Imax announced their venture into digital cinema in later that year (Nov 2006) meaning that Real D had a 3 year R & D head start.

The XL uses an optical system designed to recycle some of the light lost in the polarization effect. This step forward effectively double the light output of the 3D image. Due to the optics the two images need to be converged on screen and therefore places a lower end limit on the size of the room it can be placed into… if your throw from projector lens to screen is less than 35 ft. and insuring a throw ration greater that 1.44 for a side masking auditorium and 1.26 for a side masked Auditorium. Generally speaking that means it will work in any regular sized auditorium and most of your larger auditoriums… if you are going for a Premium large format those screens tend to have a lower aspect ration so you would need a systems designed to handle the shorter throw and larger screen… enter the XLW.

The XLW is an XL with a specialty lens designed to handle the Premium Large format specialty screens that are competing with IMAX (as mentioned earlier… Regal has RPX, Cinemark has XD, Carmike has Big3D) The XLW has an optical lens that goes throw a 9 month manufacturing process that is geared toward efficiently spreading the light at a greater angle to deal with the shorter throw and larger screen.

The XLS… this was a lens designed by Sony to work with only Sony projectors… the only cinema projector not to use DLP… and not originally intended for 3D. If your watching 3D on a Sony Projector you really don’t care about 3D anyway so I’ll skip a detailed explanation and say that the quality is similar to the Z-screen… when the projector is new. Generally the only chains that are using these are AMC and Regal… in their smaller houses as they have found that Sony can’t produce the light need for a large the mid size house for 3D.

Real D Products in the field:

It was mentioned that “Most Multiplexes use Z-Screens”… that is just not true most multiplexes have a mix of Z-screens and XL-XLW’s. Upon developing the XL Real D launched a program to place the XL, and later the XLW, into all of the houses that met the specs. At this time there are around 4 times as many XL/XLW in active use as the Z-screens. Generally when I walk through a projections booth (as I do 8-20 times a month for work) there are generally only one or two in a multiplex and on average 6-8 XL/XLWs.

“…the industry’s unofficial “goal” for 3D is 6 fL, but most standard 3D screens are 3 fL or lower…”

This statement is just outright false. It may have initially been the case when Hollywood’s first unofficial standard was 4.5 fL, but I have personally tested a couple of hundreds screens in a survey that involved around a thousand screens from various chains of various sizes globally and can tell you the average readings on Real D XL’s was around 5.9 fL and the only reason it was that low was due to some smaller chains sticking to the 4.5FtL standard to save costs in power usage and bulb size.

*“… I can pretty much guarantee that you will not be able to find out if a given Real D auditorium has Z-Screen or XL. The theater staff probably doesn’t know.” *

Your right the staff downstairs probably doesn’t know, but most people go to the same theater over and over… look at the porthole glass if you see one box of light it’s a Z-Screen if you see two boxes of light you are looking at an XL or an XLW… another clue is if your auditorium has more than 100 seats its probably an XL/XLW. So while the staff you ask may not know its not that hard to figure out.

IMAX:

Back in those distant days of actual film being projected (you know like 8 years ago) IMAX was defiantly the king of high resolution image and quality with a 70mm film real as opposed to the standard 35mm that the standard projectors use… however if you actually look at what IMAX has to offer today you need to realize the Emperor Wears No Clothes.

“… IMAX digital theaters use two high-power projectors that are automatically aligned and calibrated every day. Image quality in an average IMAX digital theater will almost always be significantly better than that of an average Real D theater.”

The first time I was in a projection booth and saw an Imax digital projector I admit I took an interest. I asked the projectionist how it compared to the other Digital Projectors he had and he laughed and said “check this out.” He then proceeded to pop a few screws lose and open the large impressive IMAX branded shell of the projector and opened it up to reveal the same Christie Digital projector that was just down the hallway. The simple truth of the mater is that an IMAX digital projector is the exact same projector that you’ll find in any theater… when the digital cinema revolution began IMAX didn’t think it would take over the industry as it has, and didn’t make the advancements to stay ahead of the game. Instead they scrambled in the aftermath of the rollout and announced their entrance into the field more than a year after digital projectors were already being installed and quickly partnered with an established company to make the digital transition… then slapped an IMAX branded plastic shell around somebody else’s product claiming it as their own… and if you want to know why they have two projectors for their setup instead of one… its because they can’t do it with one. Do you know why they calibrate their equipment every day,… its because they have to.

The truth is the only IMAX advantage right now is the lingering marketing in the public consciousness from their domination of film world… when it comes to digital I’d rather watch Real D, if for no other reason so that when I tilt my head slightly I don’t lose the 3D Effect.

And as for the difference between the 2K and 4K resolution… if the screen is smaller than 60 Ft. 99.9% of the public doesn’t notice a difference (exceptions being editors, Camera ops, some projection specialists ect…) and if the screen is Larger than 60 Ft. then across the board they have 4K projectors anyway… so once again IMAX has no advantage.

Thanks for your post, Cinephile530. You’ve provided vastly more detail than I thought people in this thread would be interested in learning. (I’ll continue that with this post.)

With respect to the proportion of Z-screens to XL systems, and the average light level of conventional 3D theaters, I was repeating what I have heard from several people in the multiplex industry, including RealD employees. My info about the dominance of the Z-screen may be out of date. But if, as you say, you have visited and tested light levels in hundreds of theaters, I will happily concede these points. (Do you perhaps work for RealD?)

However, as someone who has been involved in the IMAX industry for 30 years, I have to say that you are somewhat misinformed about IMAX Corporation, its history, and the current IMAX digital system.

First, you’re absolutely right that the IMAX 15/70* film system was vastly superior to the current IMAX digital system, but since the number of IMAX film theaters is shrinking rapidly, and Gravity was not available in 15/70 film, I didn’t harp on that point.

Virtually every one of these statements is incorrect.

IMAX was already thinking about the digital conversion in 1999, when it bought UK-based Digital Projection, Inc., for between $25 and $30 million. The two companies worked on R&D for a couple of years, but eventually parted ways. By that time it was becoming obvious that proprietary digital cinema systems were not going to be widely accepted, and the major Hollywood studios set up the Digital Cinema Initiatives to create an industry standard.

IMAX realized it would have to work within the DCI framework, and rather than try to reinvent the wheel and beat the major manufacturers (Christie, Barco, NEC, Sony) at their own game, it decided to create a system that would be a superset of DCI and add its technology to existing digital projectors. For some time it was rumored that IMAX would partner with (or even be bought by) Sony, but Sony’s commitment to LCOS instead of DLP made that impractical. IMAX settled on Christie. It has never been a secret in the giant-screen industry that the IMAX digital system was based on Christie 2K projectors at first, and, since earlier this year, Barco units. But, as I will describe below, the IMAX digital system is not simply a pair of re-badged conventional projectors.

I assume you mean by this that they couldn’t use the same linear polarizers they use in their film system with a single digital projector. But I don’t believe that’s the primary reason they went with two projectors. They could have used circular polarizers, like RealD and MasterImage. (Frankly, I don’t know why they didn’t. You and I agree that it is a major shortcoming of the system.) But using two projectors obviously gives them twice the light output of a conventional installation, which alone would set them apart from about 99% of all digital theaters.

But the system also has a black box that interpolates the two images, using superposition, to yield higher resolution than 2K. Here is their patent on the system. IMAX CTO Brian Bonnick has claimed that this gives the system better than 2K resolution. They also have proprietary technology that enhances the contrast, and their own sound system. (You can see more of IMAX’s patents here.)

In addition, they process the films before they get to the theater with a system called DMR. This technology was developed to digitally up-res 35mm features to be blown up to 70mm, and it worked remarkably well. I doubt that the films released only to the IMAX digital system need or get as much processing as the 70mm releases. But the fact is that IMAX releases have enhanced resolution and contrast and get separate sound mixes (often in cooperation with the filmmakers) that conventional theaters don’t get. And that’s to say nothing of the movies, like all of Chris Nolan’s (Dark Knight, Interstellar), the new *Star Trek *films, Catching Fire, etc., that were partially shot with IMAX cameras.

These are all reasons why, as I said, a movie seen in an IMAX digital theater will look better than in the vast majority of standard digital theaters. It won’t be as good as 15/70 film, and it will probably be on a smaller screen than an IMAX film theater, but it will be much better than the average digital cinema show. (Whether it’s worth the extra price is up to you.)

Starting in late 2014 or early 2015, IMAX will release its next-gen digital system, built from the ground up, using 4K chips and laser light sources. The stated goal is to match the image quality of 15/70 film, and it may actually have chance of doing that. It will be brighter, with more contrast, and a wider color gamut than any existing system, and will be capable of filling screens more than 100 feet (30 meters) wide.

Of course, other manufacturers are about to release their own laser systems, based on existing projectors, starting early in 2014. So the big question is whether the IMAX system will be significantly better than those. But it will still be some time before laser systems – from any manufacturer – become widespread, thanks to the current high cost of laser modules.

  • “15/70” is shorthand for the IMAX film format: each frame is 15 perforations wide, on 70mm film.

I’ve seen (…counts on fingers) seven films on Imax in 3D this year, and for the most part, it is still very much a gimmick. Gravity would be the exception to the rule for me, as the director seems to have really understood it as a medium. It was really breathtaking in Imax and fully recommended

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

In all fairness I have to concede that you have more expertise on IMAX equipment.

I’ve installed equipment from almost every manufacturer in Cinema (Both 35mm and digital). However have had limited exposure to the IMAX equipment (as they keep somewhat tight reigns on who installs it), so I’ll take your word that there is a difference in their Christie and Barco encased projectors… but the technicians and engineers I associate with who have worked with those systems have specifically told me they didn’t notice a difference between the regular Christie and the IMAX encased one.

As to the statement about them having to use two projectors, it isn’t about having to use two polarizers, it’s about the sheer size of the screens they are shooting onto. If they could get away with one projector for screens of that size I don’t image they would go the extra expense of a second projector setup and would have developed some level of electronic switched polarizer (something similar to the manner in which the z-screen switch for L/R eye). I’m of the opinion that the two projector set up is more about what is needed to hit that light level than about a vastly superior setup, and if you compare what they have done to comparable screen sizes at non IMAX locations using 3D they generally have a dual projector setup… not because its higher quality, but because that is what is needed to setup a screen that size to match the same quality that can be done on a smaller screen in the same building with one projector.

As to the “Black Box” most 3D manufacturers have something to tweak the stereo image, both Real D and Dolby have proprietary “Ghost Busting” Software aimed at improving the image on playback. It seems like a different path to similar solution to me.

Real D has post production support that aids in the creation and processing to of the stereo images, and … I can’t really talk about the rest at this time (keep an eye out at Cinema Con)

As to the Laser projector, I won’t lie I’m curious to see what IMAX has to show with their setup. I’ve seen 3 different manufactures test beds for Laser and I agree they will be slow to grow due to cost.

About the jump to 4K, do you really think that is impressive or significant as the vast majority of people who look at a 2K show then a 4K show can’t tell the difference (exception being professionals who spend their life looking at such footage: editors, Cinematographers, projection engineers, some directors, ect…), and even more importantly where is the 4K content? I can only recall two films that even released a 4K version (and I am refereeing to theatrical films here).

As far as the DMR that has been an impressive system,… that is going to mean very little as the vast majority of films being made are done in solely a digital media. Moving forward the DMR is going to be as relevant as the last manufactured Steam train, great for what it was but outdated now. IMAX has a cool sound setup, but films are mixed in Dolby, DTS, THX, even SDDS even USL was doing if for a while. Everybody does their own mixes (often with the film makers)… that is hardly a hallmark for distinction.

IMAX in 2D is cool, but hardly worth the extra expense for me. IMAX 3D, due to the linear polarization issues (A slight head tilt loses the 3D effect) is unwatchable to me, and to be honest I see a lot more ghosting on IMAX 3D than any other system.

I may be a bit biased toward 3D in a “Standard Theater” as I tend to only watch in theaters that I have setup and maintained… but IMAX in my experience seems like a lot more hype and a lot less satisfying to me.

Just to quickly respond to one aspect of your post, Cinephile530, the average IMAX screen in a retrofitted (not purpose-built) multiplex theater is not all that big. They usually use the largest house in the plex, and make the screen a little larger than it originally was, but they are generally about 50-55 feet wide. If the auditorium was built for IMAX digital, it may be 70 feet wide, 40 feet tall.

Whereas the ones built for IMAX film averaged 60x80, and the largest in the world (in Sydney, Australia) is 90x120 feet!

So the standard multiplex IMAX doesn’t need two projectors to fill the screen: they’re there to make it look better than standard.

Laser light sources for a theater projection system? I’ll believe that when I see it. Visible-light lasers have an atrociously poor efficiency, which means that enough laser light to illuminate a screen is going to dump a ludicrous amount of heat into the projection room, as well as racking up the costs for the electricity usage.