Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Matrix Media Movies

Matrix Sequels To Get the IMAX Treatment 429

Posted by timothy from the even-bigger-screen dept.
hondo77 writes "As if the two sequels to "The Matrix" weren't a big enough event already, it has been announced that both films will also be showing in IMAX theaters. "Although "The Matrix Reloaded" will open in Imax theaters two or three weeks after its general release May 15, "The Matrix Revolutions" will open Nov. 5 in both conventional and Imax cinemas..."."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Matrix Sequels To Get the IMAX Treatment More

Matrix Sequels To Get the IMAX Treatment

Comments Filter:

  • Upgrade? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by inertia187 ( 156602 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:19PM (#5793878) Homepage Journal
    ...a technology that upgrades live-action 35mm films into the Imax experience.

    I don't know if I could call it an upgrade when you have to use Pan & Scan. Sure it's bigger, and more exciting, but you're missing pieces.

    Here's a mirror to the article:

    Link 1 [martin-studio.com]

    • Re:Upgrade? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Abcd1234 ( 188840 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:29PM (#5794000) Homepage
      Errr, they display the movie in "letterbox"-style format on the IMAX screen (I would know, I saw Oceans Eleven on the IMAX). So the image is bigger, AND you get the kick-a** IMAX sound system.

      • Re:Upgrade? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Dolly_Llama ( 267016 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:40PM (#5794126) Homepage
        Maybe I got hosed, but I saw the IMAX version of Episode 2 at the IMAX at the Tech Museum in San Jose. Among other issues, the sound was the worst part! Explosions were cool, but in any medium or close shot, the voice did not match the position of the actor.

        On the plus side, the opening scene rocked and Natalie Portman's 20 foot tall breasts weren't that bad either...

      • Re:Upgrade? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Temsi ( 452609 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @06:32PM (#5795120) Journal
        You didn't read the article, did you?

        The difference here is that they use the DMR process to enlarge the frame, so it can be put to IMAX size 70mm film. To make a long story short, it analyzes each frame and enlarges it to IMAX proportions, maintaining image sharpness and detail along the way.
        Since the aspect ratio of the IMAX screen is not widescreen, but closer to 4:3, a pan and scan is necessary to use the full screen.
        Ocean's Eleven did not go through this process. What you saw, was a 35mm print, projected onto an IMAX screen, with a standard 5.1 or 6.1 Dolby Digital audio mix. A completely different thing. 35mm film projected to a screen that huge will go soft (lose sharpness).

        I've seen many films projected that way (including Ocean's Eleven, Minority Report and Jurassic Park 3), and while they look huge, and have kick ass sound, the DMR looks so much better, and sounds so much better.
        That's because the image is processed especially to take advantage of the bigger screen (grain removal, detail enhancing and more) and a new sound mix to take full advantage of the more powerful sound system.

        Apollo 13 looked amazing, SWep2 look great, but the HiDef source materical wasn't really made to withstand this type of blowup (even though it was impressive, you could still see pixellation), it was designed for normal sized theatres.

        Personally, I'll see the 35mm first, simply because I love and prefer widescreen. Then I'll see the IMAX.

    • IMAX is different cinematography altogether (Score:5, Informative)

      by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:57PM (#5794295) Homepage
      Maybe I'm too picky, but my biggest complaint about upconverting 35mm movies to IMAX is the mismatched cinematography, not the technical gotchas. The whole idea behind an IMAX film is to give the audience a window into a different world. Think about the "native" IMAX films you've seen... rather than use a mixture of camera angles to project a story on a screen, an IMAX film treats the audience as a camera and the screen as window. Slow, wide pans... a large, detailed screen... conservative transitions. IMAX filmmakers want you to feel as though you're truly inside the new environment, actually being positioned to see the action in front of you... not just watching a story on a glorifed TV. A good, native IMAX movie does this -- it makes the audience feel as though they're truly hovering around the subject matter. A bad IMAX movie makes the audience tired, confused, or sick.

      My other beef is with the public's misconception of the IMAX film format. Traditional (non-dome) IMAX uses 15/70 film. That is, 70mm film with 15 sprockets per frame. This is not plain "70mm film, which dedicates only 5 sprockets per frame. 15/70 IMAX has 3x as much film surface area as plain 70mm and nearly 10x as much as plain 35mm. (Plus other benefits, such as double the framerate and generally better audio. Though 35mm is catching up with some recent films being available in 48fps and new 7.1 channel audio from Sony SDDS and DTS).

      For more information on the IMAX format, check these out:
      http://www.superspeedway.com/eng/imax1.html [superspeedway.com]

      http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/imax1.htm [howstuffworks.com]

  • Oh wow! Yes! uh oh.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Gefiltefish11 ( 611646 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:20PM (#5793883)

    The new Matrix films, awesome...

    The new Matrix films in IMAX... whoa... oooh... ahh...

    Uh oh.. underwear check.

    • Re:Oh wow! Yes! uh oh.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:24PM (#5793935) Homepage Journal
      "The new Matrix films, awesome...

      The new Matrix films in IMAX... whoa... oooh...
      ahh...

      Uh oh.. underwear check."


      Great. He just made a prequal.

    • Re:Oh wow! Yes! uh oh.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by PD ( 9577 ) <slashdotlinux@pdrap.org> on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:32PM (#5794036) Homepage Journal
      Underwear Boy: Do not try and check the underwear. That's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.

      Neo: What truth?

      Underwear Boy: There is no underwear.

    • Re:Oh wow! Yes! uh oh.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by grumpygrodyguy ( 603716 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @05:25PM (#5794557)
      The new Matrix films, awesome...

      The new Matrix films in IMAX... whoa... oooh... ahh...

      I don't know, personally I wish films like this were given a chance to breath first. Hollywood puts so much wieght into financial success at the box office, it's almost like insider trading now. Bet on the success of whichever movie has the best marketing crew, and you'll get good returns on your money.

      When the matrix first came out, it had very little fanfare. The experience of seeing the film itself is what drove people to tell thier friends and families. Word of mouth has always been the sincere means of measuring the value of a movie. The best thing to do with a film like this is wait. Maybe it doesn't belong on an IMAX screen because it's not worth seeing period. Or maybe, it's even better than the original. There's no way to know.
      • I quite take your point. Word of mouth is probably the best vicarious judgement you can get. But on the other hand, some very nice movies (that are not being pushed by Hollywood Marketing) are around for such a short time, if you wait for word of mouth, you are likely to miss the movie.

        It's happened to me. In at least one case, it was years before I had another chance to see the movie in some repetory theatre.

  • A dream is a wish your heart makes... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dynayellow ( 106690 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:21PM (#5793897)
    Wow, that'd make Carrie Ann Moss' shoulder-blades big enough to sling a hammock... on...

    (slips in to geek catatonia)
  • Whoa.

  • Yay (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:22PM (#5793910) Homepage Journal
    "As if the two sequels to "The Matrix" weren't a big enough event already, it has been announced that both films will also be showing in IMAX theaters."

    The more these guys try to hype the Matrix, the more I want to distance myself from it. Anybody else worried they're over-marketing it?

    • Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:27PM (#5793979)
      Overmarketing is when you sell a sucky product by hyping it. Matrix Reloaded is going to be a superb product. Don't be so cynical. Pretend you're 11 and this is Empire Strikes Back.

      • Re:Yay (Score:5, Informative)

        by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:36PM (#5794084) Homepage Journal
        "Overmarketing is when you sell a sucky product by hyping it. Matrix Reloaded is going to be a superb product. Don't be so cynical. Pretend you're 11 and this is Empire Strikes Back."

        How do you know that? Name 3 movies in the last 20 years that recieved lots of hype before launch, and ended up deserving it. I can name a few *cough*Godzilla*cough*LastActionHero*Coughh*Episod es1&2*cough* that were hyped in much the same way, only to be extremely dumb movies.

        I'd love to sit back and say "Ah well I'm going to enjoy whatever I get" except all the signs are pointing towards me being out $20.

        • Re:Yay (Score:4, Insightful)

          by hondo77 ( 324058 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:42PM (#5794146) Homepage

          Name 3 movies in the last 20 years that recieved lots of hype before launch, and ended up deserving it.

          Terminator 2

          Jurassic Park

          The Lion King

        • Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Xerithane ( 13482 ) <xerithane AT nerdfarm DOT org> on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:46PM (#5794194) Homepage Journal
          How do you know that? Name 3 movies in the last 20 years that recieved lots of hype before launch, and ended up deserving it. I can name a few *cough*Godzilla*cough*LastActionHero*Coughh*Episod es1&2*cough* that were hyped in much the same way, only to be extremely dumb movies.

          I don't remember much hype about Last Action Hero. I didn't even know what it was until TBS showed it a few years later, and thought, "Hmm.. the lows some people will go."

          I'm dying to see the Matrix Reloaded. Matrix fills a role as "Damned Awesome Once a Year Movie" that Star Wars 4-6 never did for me. I don't want a Galaxy far, far away. I want people doing crazy shit in my world. The Matrix does this.

          Did you even see the trailer for it? Reloaded has the best trailer for any movie to date. It puts the Ep1&2 trailers to shame. The Wachowski (sp?) brothers know what they're doing with the creative license, and they have a team to make it golden.

          I've never been this excited over a movie, it must be like you're 11 and actually thought Star Wars was cool, something I never could experience.
          • Last Action Hero was at the peak of Ahnuld's mainstream popularity. It may have been THE peak considering how much damage that movie did to that popularity. There were extensive marketing tie ins (McDonalds game, t-shirts, lunchboxes) that disappeared the week after the movie was released to vicious reviews. (looks at imdb) Here's the chronological list of Schwarzenegger's mainstream films:

            Twins
            Total Recall
            Kindergarten Cop
            Terminator 2
            Last Action Hero
            True Lies
            Junior
            Eraser
            Jingle All the Way
            Batman & Ro

            • Re:Yay (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Xerithane ( 13482 )
              Last Action Hero was at the peak of Ahnuld's mainstream popularity. It may have been THE peak considering how much damage that movie did to that popularity.

              This is wrong. After Last Action Hero, most his movies have ranked in the top 15 for the year. True Lies, yup. Eraser, yup. Batman & Robin, yup. End of Days even made a lot of money, not sure if it's on the top 15. Arnold has never picked the "major" movies, except the Terminator series. Even Conan was more of a cult favorite, then a classi

          • Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)

            by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @05:35PM (#5794640) Homepage Journal
            "I don't remember much hype about Last Action Hero."

            Let me put it to you this way: It was hyped enough that a reference to it made it into an episode of Married With Children. It's not very often sitcoms admit to the existence of movies.

            "Did you even see the trailer for it? Reloaded has the best trailer for any movie to date. It puts the Ep1&2 trailers to shame. "

            The trailer wasn't that cool. It showed a few neat-o effects, no argument there. So did Episode 1. Only, Episode 1's trailer led you to believe that there was going to be some massive epic battle in the end, not some pathetic skirmish. What if Reloaded is that way? What if there's a couple of cool battle scenes, but it's tied together by a flimsy plot designed to place those characters into that situation?

            "The Wachowski (sp?) brothers know what they're doing with the creative license, and they have a team to make it golden."

            There was a time where the same would have been said about George Lucas. Who's saying that today?

            Look, the movie could be good. I hope it's good, I'd like it to be good. What I'm reacting to is how hard they're trying to sell this movie on me. that should always send up a red flag. If this movie's so good, then how come they need Superbowl ads for it? How come they are trying to lure people into more expensive IMAX theaters for it?

            The only thing giving me hope for Reloaded right now is the Animatrix. That's where the true creativity seems to be coming from. So far, from the first movie and what's been seen from the second one, it's an attempt to make anime-style editing into live-action. Fine. Just make the story interesting.

            Frankly, I'm saddened that the first Matrix wasn't more like X-Men. I mean, who'd shed a tear of any of the characters from the Matrix was killed? Pretty flat.

            • What if Reloaded is that way? What if there's a couple of cool battle scenes, but it's tied together by a flimsy plot designed to place those characters into that situation?

              What do you mean *IF*? Its a 99% certainty that its going to be a shallow stupid story (like most commercial movies today) but its also certain it will have the wildest effects seen for a long time. Know that when you go in, and chances are you won't be that upset.

        • Re:Yay (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Viking Coder ( 102287 )
          Goldeneye
          Lord of the Rings : The Fellowship of the Ring
          Lord of the Rings : The Two Towers
          X-Men
          True Lies
          Terminator 2
          Goodfellas
          The Abyss
          Aliens
          E.T.
          The Fifth Element
          Back to the Future
          Austin Powers
          Wayne's World
          Rain Man
          Good Will Hunting
          Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
          Fight Club
          L.A. Confidential
          The Sixth Sense
          Braveheart
          Forrest Gump
          Leathal Weapon 2
          Pulp Fiction
          A Few Good Men ...and Shawshank Redemption
          Oh, and Schindler's List

    • Re:Yay (Score:3, Funny)

      by ralico ( 446325 )
      I'm waiting for them to try to use the Moon as a movie screen.

      • ...or Cartmans arse, it might just be big enough :)

    • They don't need too much marketing to get the fans but they had not met their expectations with the first release.
      I hope they will do whatever possible to sink "Titanic" once and forever.
    • In the end it will depend on the product. I like the Matrix - a lot. Although it is far from a perfect science fiction story (a couple too many gaping holes in the logic), and, yeah, Keanu is always, uh, wooden, it did what it came to do - take the hyperkinetic reality of kung fu movies, anime and comic book heros and craft it into a big screen sized reality with tons of energy and special effects flair to spare.

      Luckily most of the hype is avoidable. Hopefully, as the release date approaches, we will n

    • I agree. Whenever a niche group goes apeshit over something, I'm skeptical. Take for example, scummy dorks and LOTR. Whenever a huge amount of the population goes apeshit over something, I'm skeptical. Take for example, the American public and Titanic.

      Fortunately, I listened to my skepticism with Titanic and have not seen it, nor plan to, ever. Unfortunately, I didn't listen to my skepticism with LOTR, saw it, and blew 3 hours (and $4 for the matinee).

      The Matrix itself was good though. Like someone
  • All right! You there! Yes, you! I see you. Pull yourself together, man, people are watching. Now quickly shut your mouth (hold your lower jaw with your hand if you have to), go on google and quietly find the nearest IMAX theater.

    Then proceed to get in line.

    It is NOT too early.

  • Bullet time with the bullets bigger then YOU!

  • OK (Score:3, Funny)

    by The Clockwork Troll ( 655321 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:24PM (#5793933) Journal
    So there's the blue pill, the red pill, and what color is the Dramamine pill I'd need to stomach a 5-story high Wachovski brothers film?

  • Forget IMAX! I want DLP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by enkidu ( 13673 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:24PM (#5793936) Homepage Journal
    Like the subject says, I don't want film, I want digital. Having seen several films (Akira (twice digital, once on film), Monster's Inc. (1+1), SW: TPM (1+1), etc.) on DLP [dlp.com] and on film, I can say that the film going experience is a full order of magnitude better on DLP. The blacks are black. The edges are sharper, the film "jitter" is gone and the whole image simply kicks ass. Yes, I know that film is theoretically better. But the print you see in the theatre is 4 generations old if you're lucky and 6 or 7 if you're not. So forget nausea inducing IMAX, bring it in DLP and I'll go to see it 5 times.

    • Comparisons... (Score:5, Informative)

      by tgd ( 2822 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:34PM (#5794061)
      Having seen Star Wars: Episode 2 in DLP, Imax and plain film, I'd greatly disagree. Imax was FAR superior in quality of the image, and overall cinematic experience than DLP.

      Episode II was projected at 1280x1024, stretched to the normal aspect ratio by a 1.9X anamorphic lens to stretch the image back to its correct resolution...

      Thats not a lot of pixels for a full-size screen. Pixelation was very noticable. Color saturation and consistancy was somewhat better, but not enough to say its superior to the Imax experience.

      Given the choice I'd rather see any action movie in the Imax format, seconded with DLP, and then film... Dramatic movies, I'd probably swap DLP and Imax in favor of not pan-n-scanning, but one could just as easily use the 70mm IMAX frame with cropped images, or an anamorphic lens to get the full-size image as well.
    • DLP IMAX would be very cool once the frame rates and resolution of DLP are going to increased.
    • Actually I'd like to see it in pure 70mm. By "pure" I mean that I'm hoping it was shot on 70mm stock, then to see it on a good 70mm screen would be way too awesome. Forget digital, this would kick it's butt two ways to Tuesday.
      • 70mm film runs roughly ten dollars a foot for a one-off. 180 feet will shoot you a second of screen time.

        Or, in other words, shooting on 70 isn't really cost-feasible. It's done from time to time for ego projects.

        Also note that I'm talking about film 70 and not imax 70, which is even worse.

        -Brett
    • Only if they could get DLP on IMAX screen. :)

  • I hope they filmed it with higher res cameras (Score:5, Informative)

    by jackb_guppy ( 204733 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:25PM (#5793952)
    With Star Wars II film with a camera that had a resulation less than 35mm film. All three verisons of the film 35mm, digital, and IMax, looked bad and blocky.

    If they did that here too... IMax and most big screen would be a waste of space.

    • Re:I hope they filmed it with higher res cameras (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Sorry, but you're wrong. It's true that 35mm film has more resolution than HD video, but most of that resolution is lost in duplication. Film is shot on negative, and that negative has to be duplicated once to make an interpositive. The IP is duped again to make an internegative, an IN, and the IN is duplicated to make the prints that are show in theaters.

      By the time you get a piece of 35 mm film out to a cinema and project it, it has an effective resolution of about 800 vertical pixels.

      A movie shot on vi

  • It is about gosh darn time! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by confused philosopher ( 666299 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:26PM (#5793961) Homepage Journal
    I've been waiting years for feature length films to show up in IMAX. Now that they've overcome the technical difficulties of it all, people can start to enjoy films that are worth the $10+ we shell out to see them on BIG screens.

    I bet this won't be part of the Museum of Civilation IMAX in Hull though, where you can see all the IMAX movies shown in a year for only $35 Canadian.
    • My problem with these massive screens is that the original prints are usually not filmed at a high-enough resolution. As a result, the images just look huge and blurry. Now, if I could see an IMAX-sized hollywood film, but with a beautiful, high-resolution print (like *real* IMAX films, which are filmed on 70mm rather than 35, and at a higher frame rate), I'd be all for that. But as it stands, the megaplex giant screens are big enough for my taste.

      Also, IMAX-specific films often use the IMAX screen size

    • Re:It is about gosh darn time! (Score:4, Informative)

      by asparagus ( 29121 ) <koonce@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @05:14PM (#5794463) Homepage Journal
      Problems:

      First, film is expensive. IMAX will never be a cost-effective format to shoot on. Secondly, IMAX provides a tremendous amount of data to the viewer. So much so that traditional filmmaking techniques fall apart. People look ugly when 50 feet tall. Imagine if every person in the audience could see each pore of your skin. In addition, the visual depth of IMAX makes it impossible for traditional camera moves and technique. And finally, money. There's not enough IMAX theatres to support anything other than the occasional (basically) port of the latest hot movie.
  • What a waste. We have screens here at our regular theatre which are just as wide as the imax screen, so I ended up paying $11 and waiting hours to see what ended up beeing the most letterboxed movie I've ever seen in my life

    True this will be "upgraded" but I can't imagine that wouldn't be anything more than Pan&Scan, which on a 5 story screen would probably make me sick anyway. When filmed for the IMAX screen the movie experience can be amazing, however this does not seem like anything more than a gim

    • The film may not necessarily be pan and scan actually. I don't know how the Matrix 2/3 were filmed, but it all depends on the camera being used to film the stuff.

      I heard that while lot of James Cameron's stuff is shown at 2.35, but he actually films it on film with a 4:3 ratio and blocks the tops and bottoms to make it widescreen. That's why some "pan and scan" films actually "add" image to the top and bottom. Apparently this is how some of the DVD 4:3 versions were made. No pan and scan, just removal of

  • Sounds like something we joke about.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:28PM (#5793992) Journal
    Sounds like something we joke about: getting to see Carrie Anne Moss in that dashingly dirty and hormone punishing leather outfit, stretching out in a leaping attack in slow and glorious "in bullet time".
  • I already made arrangements to take the afternoon off to see Matrix Reloaded on opening day, now I'm gonna have to take another afternoon off to see it in IMAX? Life sucks.
  • Most IMAX movies aren't 2 hour features, because most people can't sit through that much sensory stimulation. You tend to get nauseous after 20-30 minutes or so. That, and judging by the way the original matrix was filmed (lots of scene changes and things that require eye movement around the screen), this would be just too much for your average viewer.

    The other problem is that, since the master is on 35 mm film and IMax uses 70mm film at twice the framerate, there won't be any visual improvement quality

  • 3D (Score:2)

    by fgb ( 62123 )
    Now if only it was 3D as well... whoa.

  • I remember seeing a movie on a huge roundish screen once when I was younger. It was awesome. It curved to the side and also above, like part of a sphere or something. I thought it was IMAX. I want to say that it was in Detroit somewhere, but I don't remember. It was at some Museum. Anyway, it rocked.

    And then I saw "Beauty and the Beast" on IMAX at Chicago's Navy Pier. (Hey, my girlfriend wanted to see it. Lay off.) I was incredibly disappointed. Does the Navy Pier setup just suck, or is that indi

    • Re:I was underwhelmed by IMAX (Score:4, Informative)

      by Abcd1234 ( 188840 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:49PM (#5794222) Homepage
      Is that all IMAX really is? Do I just suck?

      Yup, you suck. ;) Seriously, you should go and check out a real IMAX film. One that was created from an IMAX master, and designed specifically to be shown on an IMAX screen. These things are incredible to see. Because it's filmed on 70mm, the image is crystal clear, and the higher frame rate means it's unbelievably smooth and realistic. I've seen a couple (one on thrill seekers... sky divers, etc, on the IMAX... lots of vertigo :), and one on the rainforests, which had gorgeous fly-overs) and I was blown away each time.

      So, seriously, check out a real IMAX film, not one of these crappy transfers. You'll change you're mind, trust me.
    • You must be thinking of OMNIMax theatres. We have one close to me in Vancouver BC. It is just as you describe with a curved screen like the inside of a sphere. In the case of the theatre here, it is actually inside a geodesic dome that was part of Expo 86 but is now a science centre called Science World.

      In reality, as I understand it, OMNIMax is just an IMAX file projected on the curved screen. Whatever it is, I like it way better. Much more immersive because it includes your peripheral vision.
    • You're comparing it to an Omnimax film. I'm not sure about whether Omnimax and IMAX can be shown in the same theaters, as I see Omnimax at the Boston MOS and have only seen plain IMAX at the Navy Pier. The Omnimax format is more compelling. (And for other reasons, I just don't like the Navy Pier theater; including their selection, cleanliness, etc.) Search for Omnimax on this page http://home.earthlink.net/~mrob/pub/filmformats.h t ml It sounds like it's basically an elliptical presentation of an image f

    • Re:I was underwhelmed by IMAX (Score:5, Informative)

      by Lev13than ( 581686 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @05:00PM (#5794326) Homepage
      That's because you probably saw an OMNIMAX [msichicago.org] (aka ""IMAX DOME" [civilization.ca]) as opposed to an IMAX. The OMNIMAX has a round screen & more immersive experience, but there aren't as many screens or movies out there. Most OMNIMAXes usually just show IMAX movies w/o taking advantage of the larger screen. Same company though, and essentially the same technology.

  • WTF, Icon? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mr.Intel ( 165870 ) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `371letnirm'> on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:34PM (#5794063) Homepage Journal
    Where is the special "Matrix" icon? The standard movie icon just isn't the same...

  • First predictive post (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:37PM (#5794097) Homepage
    Cue:
    • 33 "whoa" posts
    • 21 posts with references to Trinity's boobs
    • 3 "Netcraft confirms - *BSD is Dying" posts
    • 1 "Netcraft confirms - The Matrix is dying" as correction to the above
    • 3 posts asking what the Matrix is
    • 41 flamish replies to the above
    • 12 "Why don't they release 'X' on IMax instead" posts
    • 10 "The Matrix is overrated" posts (modded as overrated)
    • 3 "The matrix sucks" posts (-1, flamebait)
    • 5 posts making some connection between The matrix and Open Source
    • 4 posts making some connection between The Matrix and real life, by 12-17 year olds
    • One as above, but by a 40-year old.
    • 3 "First Post" posts
    • 1 goatse post
    • 1 goatse post with a URL redirect claiming a Bittorrent download of the movie
    • 1 predictive post post. Whoa!
  • I saw AOTC in IMAX, and it completely sucked. Several people got sick, and I developed a headache. I mean for crying out loud, the film was shot digitally right? It should have been a piece of cake to re-project the film so it would actually look good on the screen, but they apparently didn't do anything at all.

    The result was an annoying blast of light and sound that was extremely nauseating.

    I hope with The Matrix they actually put some effort into a good IMAX presentation.

  • this is totally pie in the sky, but has anyone heard anything about the original? I would love to see the whole series on IMAX, and would probably go to see the films multiple times which is highly rare for me to do... (i'm lucky enough to live about two blocks from one of their theaters, at the texas state history museum here in Austin)

  • WARNING! IMAX vs Omnimax (Score:5, Interesting)

    by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:47PM (#5794204) Homepage Journal
    I've seen and enjoyed many IMAX features, including a few 3D titles ("Across the Sea of Time," a NYC travelogue, was just amazing).

    Last fall, a local (Portland, Oregon) science museum advertised a super-large screen version of Attack of the Clones. WOW! I wanted to see the movie again, and here it was being presented in 70mm format on a BIG SCREEN! Golly, how could I lose? I gladly paid the ten dollars and . . .

    Cripes . . .

    It turns out that the Portland OMSI theater had an OMNIMAX screen. Not IMAX. The latter is a gently curved, huge, conventional movie screen. The former is basically hemispherical.

    There was NO correction for the curvature. Everything was BENT. Ships travelled in curved lines.

    It was SUCKY experience. To rub things in, it was a CUT version of the film. Nothing crucial was cut, but it was noticiable.

    My experience might have been totally different in an IMAX theater.

    So . . . beware.

    Stefan

    • I've seen formats like imax, omnimax, imax dome, imax hd, imax magic carpet... can someone give a rundown of all the different formats and which are compatible with which screens. In Pittsburgh we have an imax dome type theater, which is advertised as an omnimax theater.
  • I just hope they aren't jerks about it like Lucas was for StarWars.

    The Imax Theater [cosmo.org] near me couldn't show Star Wars because to show SW, you had to show ONLY SW - and they could not accept that - they wanted to show their other films as well.

    That said, I just wonder how they deal with a 2 hour movie, given the size of the reel for a 40 minute movie....

    (I cannot wait until DLPs are beefy enough to use them to feed Imax/Omnimax screens - Imax at 60 Hz would be quite nice.)

  • I have to ask... (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by kwiqsilver ( 585008 )
    "What is the Matrix?"

    Is it something you can show me, or do I have to experience it for myself?

  • Bah. (Score:2)

    by cjpez ( 148000 )
    I can't focus on things that big, especially when there's lots of fast action going on. It's like sitting too close to the front of the theater. It just ruins the whole experience. I've disliked most of the "Bigger Than God" screens that I've been at, and actively avoid them now. The standard screen size that the big theaters in the area use is perfect; it occupies my whole field of vision and I can still make out what's happening when things are going quickly. So I say, "Bah!" to IMAX! Take that!
  • Why not check out some talented [imdb.com] brothers [faithringgold.com]?
  • All I want is a Dome IMAX in San Francisco. I used to watch IMAX movies in Boston's Museum of Science years ago and the flat screen IMAX just can not compare to the Dooooome.

    What an immersive experience.

    Sniff. I miss it.
  • Massachusetts-based furniture store chain Jordan's Furniture [jordans.com] has recently opened up an IMAX theatre [jordansimax.com] at their Natick, Massachusetts venue. Though I have no idea if this theatre intends to show the new matrix film, I did see Star Wars on their IMAX screen and it was excellent. I also saw Lord of the Rings on the IMAX in Montréal and highly recommend the experience to all movie buffs.

  • IMAX Theater Locator (Score:4, Informative)

    by weston ( 16146 ) <(westonsd) (at) (canncentral.org)> on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @05:20PM (#5794509) Homepage
    [imax.com]
    http://www.imax.com/body.html?p=cgi-bin/theatres /l ocator1.pl&s=no

    Or just go to imax.com and start in if you want the full "experience" :). There's some interesting stuff there.

  • The IMAX film system is dying.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheHawke ( 237817 ) <{rchapin} {at} {stx.rr.com}> on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @05:21PM (#5794521)
    but they just don't know it yet.

    The projection system that does all the work is costly and as indicated in several postings on here, has their limitations and disadvantages in both pre- and post-processing of the film.

    The projector itself can be replaced by several digital LCD projectors operated by a stagemaster system designed to keep the individual units in sync, showing digital quality movies that were either converted from the standard format, letterbox, or IMAX/Omnimax format to a DVD or similiar format that would go thru a electronic lens program designed to "shape" the projection for maximum effect and quality for the curved screen.

    The added onus to this is the ability to hold massive teleconferences with several different locations, or showing events from several different areas at once.

    The advantages of this setup is next to no upkeep at all by a trained operator, aside from a system admin that is really there just to keep the system in tune or to replace any parts on the projectors that fail, most often it would be the bulbs.

    Just my 2 cents worth..
    Oh, and if anyone from the IMAX consortium is reading this, contact me.

  • SW:ATotC - pixelation issues (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 0divide ( 63357 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @08:07PM (#5795680) Homepage
    I saw Star Wars II on IMAX and I have to admit, it wasn't all that impressive. My main issues with this process of converting 16x9 movies to IMAX's 4:3 (or whatever it is);

    - the films are basically getting blown up to Pan & Scan, like on TV, so you are missing a lot of the picture

    - I guess the process is digital (or perhaps it was the Star Wars source material) so I saw a LOT of pixelization, to the point of distraction. Fleshtones and large swaths of color looked HORRIBLE depending on the lighting. It was like watching a poorly compressed MPEG--4 stories high.

    - the films are not DIRECTED to be IMAX films. IMAX films tend to really immersive, one is often floating in water, in space, walking around the desert or the snow--the films use the format to create an experience, a realistic and true environment, where your eyes are tricked to see things "life size". Regular films are directed to be stories, the camera is usually an observer, not a participant.

    - Your eyes adjust really, really quickly--the first few minutes of Star Wars were cool, but the whole IMAX effect kind of disappeared, again (I think), because the films are not designed to be IMAX films. Only a few other scenes (the meteor scene in particular) made me go, "oh, right! this is IMAX."

    - The sound IS dope, but one must remember that the films need to be remixed--the vast majority of the sound comes from 2 speakers above and behind the viewers (they're super massive, though).

    - One good thing, at least for Star Wars, is that the film apparently cannot be longer than 2 hours, so "Clones" was actually a LOT better in IMAX--a lot of the lamer scenes were cut and it felt like a much tighter film.

    This will be cool, but mostly as a supplement to first seeing it in the regular theatre...

  • Not news to me... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @08:14AM (#5798331) Homepage Journal
    ...because the IMAX theater near me, in Branson, often picks a mainstream movie (usually the one with the best special effects) to show on its big screen along with all its specialized IMAX films. Even if this hadn't been announced, I would have expected it to show up there sooner or later anyway.

    Seems like a lot of mainstream cinematographers are going more IMAX these days. James Cameron and Bill Paxton's recent IMAX documentary on the Titanic, for instance. (I can't help but think I'd find that documentary a little nervewracking, though. I mean, Bill Paxton in a submarine at crush depth in a James Cameron movie? I'd keep expecting him to die a horrible death about 3/4 of the way through the film. :)

Slashdot Top Deals

/earth: file system full.

Close