Is Imax 3D worth the extra $8 per ticket?

More imho, but since it’s movie related:

I’m thinking of seeing STAR TREK at the Imax 3D just because this is the first time I’ve ever lived close to an Imax 3D. A friend I’m going to see it with is afraid it’ll be a miserable experience due to the fact Imax seats are uncomfortable and he doesn’t like 3D glasses to begin with.

For those who’ve seen movies in Imax 3D, is it all that?

I’m guessing that it is for the scenes of the Enterprise orbiting a planet, but the notion of a 700 foot looking Simon Pegg talking to a 700 foot Anton Yelchin in a dialogue scene is, I’ll admit, not as exciting and won’t lose anything from 2D.

It’s a novelty, nothing more. I don’t think it ever really adds to the movie and it’s not particularly mind-blowing.

Imax 3D is a legacy technology that’s inferior to the RealD 3D that most theaters use, so even if you decide to see a movie in 3D, you still shouldn’t choose the Imax 3D specifically. It can be worthwhile, for the right movie, if you’re seeing it an actual Imax (or better yet, Omnimax) theater with the giant screen, but don’t bother at all with an Imax system in a normal-sized theater.

I’ll echo this. The Imax screens at normal multiplexes are usually bigger than the other screens at the same multiplex, but it’s nowhere near the experience of the original, “real” Imax. The brand name has IMO been diluted by its licensing to non-purpose-built Imax theaters. The first post in this thread at another forum discusses the various Imax formats, and the differences between real Imax and multiplex Imax. The graphic contrasting the purpose-built Lincoln Square Imax and a multiplex Imax screen sizes and ratios is pretty illustrative of how underwhelming the experience might be at the local theater.

I don’t think it’s fair to say that IMAX 3D is inferior to Real-D - when shot properly, IMAX 3D is far superior to Reald, as far as the audience is concerned - simply based on what’s up on the screen. The high resolution of 65mm film, combined with stereo, is stunning, and I much prefer the look of it to RealD.

That said, it has it shortcomings - and these are something the filmmakers have to deal with. IMAX cameras are unwieldy, they’re noisy, and they are less forgiving technically. They aren’t really very practical for feature work, and that’s why we will probably never see a feature shot entirely (or even mostly) in this format - when you see a Hollywood feature “in IMAX”, count on it having 15 - 30 minutes of actual IMAX footage, and the rest is scaled up from more conventional cameras.

I have never been disappointed with IMAX 3D, but then I’ve only gone to see IMAX versions of big movies after seeing the regular 3D version.

Now, the day when they replace those creaky old IMAX projectors with digital rigs, and start shooting entire “large format” “films” digitally, with super high resolution and a high frame rate, with lightweight, , easy-to-move, and unobtrusive cameras… …that will be a good day.

i saw it in imax non 3d. abram’s shaky camera is eye boggling in regular, i can’t imagine what the 3d would be. take some motion sick pills.

If you are seeing it in 3D, it probably IS digital.
Most of the IMAX houses in this area have ripped out the film projectors and installed the digital projectors.

Hell, most of the film projectors in 35mm are gone now. The difference in cost between schelping about 120lbs of film print and a 2lb FedEX box have killed off film prints. A IMAX print is over 250lbs, and double that for 3D.

I’ve never seen a full length imax 3d movie or an abram’s movie, but if abrams is known for a shaky camera, then I would echo this caution. I saw The Hobbit in non-imax 3d and the camera was so blurry whenever it moved that it was very distracting. I then saw it again in 2d and it was still very blurry whenever the camera moved, but because it wasn’t so immersive it wasn’t so distracting. But the flip side of the coin is that the rest of the movie was more immersive in 3-d. I think I will see the rest of the Hobbit movies in 3-d because when the background isn’t moving it’s a great movie.

But if this entire Star Trek movie will be moving and the 3-d is blurry, it could get pretty horrid.

Larry Mudd, I was referring there to the 3D technology itself, not the projection medium it’s used with. IMAX 3D uses linear polarization, which results in ghosting if you tilt your head even slightly. RealD uses circular polarization, which doesn’t have this problem, but it took a while for someone to figure out how to make circular polarization filters that are cheap enough to be disposable.

Nothing more than my own opinion, but: seeing The Hobbit in IMAX 3D is the first and only time I’ve actually been impressed with 3D technology and felt that it was worth it. And I say that as a guy who saw Iron Man 3 in RealD 3D just last night. The experience of that film was okay, but it doesn’t hold a candle to the visuals that came at me in the IMAX theater.

And I could feel it from the start of the trailers: the very first trailer was for Oz: The Great and Powerful, and started with that little hummingbird popping out toward the viewer. And I swear, if there’d been an actual hummingbird in the theater, it couldn’t have looked more “there”.

Avatar and The Hobbit were good in IMAX 3D, so was Batman Rises.

I saw Star Trek in regular 3D and it was too dark in 3d, with vignetting.

Yes, this is a cool improvement - though I don’t recall ever having a problem with ghosting with the old school polarized 3D - I keep upright in my seat for 3D movies. (Well, all movies, I think) - and even with circularly polarized 3D, it’s still important to keep your eyes parallel with the horizon - the image won’t bleed through, but it still breaks the 3D.

IMAX benefits from a larger screen and (for the actual IMAX-filmed bits) a higher resolution, but I can’t help pointing out that both The Hobbit and Oz the Great and Powerful have superior 3D to Iron Man 3, even if you’re comparing only the RealD versions – they were both actually filmed in 3D, while Iron Man 3 had its 3D added in post-production. It was a relatively good conversion, but no conversion from 2D will ever look as compellingly “there” as something that’s actually shot in stereo - it’s amazing that it is done as well as it is: “Take this picture. No recreate it as it would look if you shifted your POV an inch-and-a-half to the left, down to the last detail. Whew, that was a lot of work - now do it 170,000 more times.” Of course you have to fudge a* bit.* :stuck_out_tongue:

Personally, I find it baffling that they don’t shoot all modern 3D films in 3D to begin with. What’s the advantage to shooting in 2 and then upconverting? It’s certainly inferior, and it seems like it’d be a lot more work.

Avatar was great in 3D, even on the “fake” IMAX screen, but many other films have been a total waste of money. Thus, we usually opt for the old fashioned 2D unless there have been stellar reviews of the 3D aspect - and not so surprisingly, there are not that many films that get stellar reviews for the 3D version.

We went to our local casino multiplex and I was complaining to the girl behind the counter that this theater has not had any of the big films…Iron Man or Great Gatsby…and she said the big movies studios are to blame. Unless your multiplex has multiple 3D capable screens, you are shit out of luck and they will only open those big films at other locations that do have multiple 3D screens - even if they do have 2D versions of films that sell more tickets.

It is not that my SO and I hate 3D, but most of the time is it simply not worth the extra $5 (or more) just so we can see a hummingbird land on our nose. And if the film is at all dark in spots, all bets are off and you can’t see a damned thing.

And call us old-fashioned, but we still like stuff like good scripts, good acting and good cinematography…we can pass on the gimmicks that try to make you forget those shortcomings.

This is just weird. EVERYBODY has replaced their projectors in the last 5 years, 3D just needs a silver screen. The $200 hard drive that holds the movie does not care if the copy of the movie on it is 2d or 3d.

About half the time, it was the studios that paid for the new projectors.

There is no excuse for dark movies. The lamphouses should have been replaced with the projectors–and a 2 kilowatt bulb can do a good job on a 50’ screen, while costing about the same as a 1.6KW bulb.

It’s actually a less work than shooting properly in 3D, and easier for the filmmakers because they don’t have to think much about it during shooting - it’s all contracted out. When you’re shooting 3D, you need to be aware of stuff like convergence at all times, and if you screw it up, you’ve lost the shot. There are extra challenges when you have two cameras; you have to be very aware of hot spots and lens flares, because they look weird if they only show up in one eye.

You’re doubling a lot of the work for SFX shots if you shoot native stereo, you have to do all your compositing twice (and extra carefully, because there can’t be any discrepancies.) Of course, all the extra work is reflected in the budget - many estimates I’ve seen suggest shooting 3D adds around 30% to the overall costs. If you settle for converting it in post-production, it can be as low as 5%.

Personally, I think the superior result from shooting 3D is a no-brainer - but then it’s not my money and I’m not the one doing the work, so guess I’m not mystified that the people who have to worry about those things sometimes choose the easier, cheaper option. :stuck_out_tongue:

The 3d in the two movies I’ve seen in IMAX3D definitely seemed inferior to the 4-5 movies I’ve seen in RealD 3D. Seems to be a lot more ghosting and stuff getting through to the wrong eye.

I don’t think it was a simple calibration issue or anything as I saw the two movies several years apart, I would think they would’ve fixed it if there was something wrong with the projection.