# IMAX movies not really IMAX? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 15, 2009, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imax-movies-not-really-imax/496477 "2009-05-15T00:41:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imax-movies-not-really-imax/496477/21 "2009-05-17T14:16:36Z")
LF Examiner has posted a [map](http://www.lfexaminer.com/ImaxMapUS.htm)showing the different types of IMAX theater in the U.S. and Canada. In general, the GT and SR theaters (blue and green) are giant screens, and the MPX and Digital theaters (yellow and red) are not. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imax-movies-not-really-imax/496477/22 "2009-05-18T04:08:47Z")
the new Star Trek flick isnt the best example since it wasnt shot in Imax but I would have been pissed to drive to a theater only to find out that Batman Dark Knight was being shown on some crappy smaller screen. you cant Duplicate that immense sized screen without another immense sized screen, that feeling that you are falling with the camera into the shot is what I am paying for. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imax-movies-not-really-imax/496477/23 "2009-05-19T14:23:18Z")
What influences a studio on whether or not to make an IMAX version of a movie? I’m looking for Terminator: Salvation Imax somewhere but nowhere appears to have it. The imax website doesn’t list it as a coming attraction. Since it’s a huge budget movie that would greatly benefit from it, I’m wondering why there’s no IMAX print for it. It irritates the hell out of me that I can’t see T:S in Imax but I can see the sequel to night at the museum that way… ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imax-movies-not-really-imax/496477/24 "2009-05-19T15:04:29Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > What influences a studio on whether or not to make an IMAX version of a movie? I’m looking for Terminator: Salvation Imax somewhere but nowhere appears to have it. The imax website doesn’t list it as a coming attraction. Since it’s a huge budget movie that would greatly benefit from it, I’m wondering why there’s no IMAX print for it. > > It irritates the hell out of me that I can’t see T:S in Imax but I can see the sequel to night at the museum that way… Basically, Imax Corporation is the gatekeeper. They decide which films will get the IMAX treatment, based on what they think will do best. It comes down to release windows. Until the digital system was rolled out, they needed to keep the films in the theaters for at least six weeks to pay off the cost of the 70mm prints: $20,000 for 2D, $40,000 for 3D. So they were limited to seven or eight films a year. With the digital system, the print cost basically goes away, so they can do more films in a year. The goal is 10-12. It’s only because of the digital projectors that they were able to do _Star Trek_ two weeks before _Night at the Museum 2_, which was set months before _Star Trek_ was moved into that slot. I don’t know the release history of _Terminator_, but it may also have moved after the commitment to _NATM2_ was made. Also, for now, Imax prefers family-friendly fare, since some museums won’t book R-rated films. But as the multiplex theaters become more dominant, that will probably weaken. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imax-movies-not-really-imax/496477/25 "2009-05-19T15:39:39Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > With the digital system, the print cost basically goes away, so they can do more films in a year. The goal is 10-12. It’s only because of the digital projectors that they were able to do _Star Trek_ two weeks before _Night at the Museum 2_, which was set months before _Star Trek_ was moved into that slot. I don’t know the release history of _Terminator_, but it may also have moved after the commitment to _NATM2_ was made. It doesn’t help that _Up_ opens one week after T4, so that leaves a very short IMAX window for the latter before it would get bumped by Pixar–short enough not to be worth the effort, I suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imax-movies-not-really-imax/496477/26 "2009-05-19T15:41:59Z")
When I heard there was an Imax opening in town, and then heard it would be showing a lot of first run popular films, I just figured somewhere there was a lab where normal 35 mm prints were being blown up and copied to 70 mm prints. And I thought the result would be slightly grainy normal films on ginormous screens. And it’s not even that good? I feel ripped off, and I’ve never even been to one! ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imax-movies-not-really-imax/496477/27 "2009-05-19T15:47:53Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > It doesn’t help that _Up_ opens one week after T4, so that leaves a very short IMAX window for the latter before it would get bumped by Pixar–short enough not to be worth the effort, I suspect. _Up_ is Disney 3D, not IMAX. > [@Boyo Jim](#): > > When I heard there was an Imax opening in town, and then heard it would be showing a lot of first run popular films, I just figured somewhere there was a lab where normal 35 mm prints were being blown up and copied to 70 mm prints. And I thought the result would be slightly grainy normal films on ginormous screens. > > And it’s not even that good? I feel ripped off, and I’ve never even been to one! Actually IMAX’s digital remastering process is amazingly good. It’s not just an optical blowup from 35mm, which would be horrible. They use some amazing high tech to improve the image quality for the 70mm prints, and generally they look much better than the original 35mm. Of course, you don’t see most of that improvement on the digital IMAX screen, because it’s smaller and lower resolution than the 15-perf 70mm frame. In fact, if they only had digital screens (which is the direction they’re moving), they wouldn’t have to do nearly as much digital enhancement as they do now for the 70mm prints. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imax-movies-not-really-imax/496477.md?page=1)