Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Matrix Media Movies Entertainment

Matrix Revolutions To Be Released On Imax 260

Posted by timothy from the still-bitter-about-missing-lotr-trilogy-tickets dept.
captain igor writes "IMAX.com is reporting that Matrix Revolutions is going to be released at select IMAX theatres on November 5th, with a wider range of theatres picking the movie up shortly thereafter. (Link includes list of IMAX theatres that will premier the movie.)" We mentioned earlier this year that the Matrix sequels would be Imax-sized.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Matrix Revolutions To Be Released On Imax More

Matrix Revolutions To Be Released On Imax

Comments Filter:

  • Morpheus (Score:4, Funny)

    by felonious ( 636719 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @07:00PM (#7196845) Journal
    I can only imagine how big Larry Fishburne's gut will look on an Imax screen. I never knew there was a Crispy Creme in Zion.

  • Deja-Vu? (Score:5, Funny)

    by wo1verin3 ( 473094 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @07:02PM (#7196854) Homepage
    Neo: I seem to recall this being posted on slashdot before!
    Trinity: Deja Vu, its a glitch in the Matrix. Is it a different article? Or the same article twice?

    • Original Conversion Info (Score:4, Informative)

      by Davak ( 526912 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @07:22PM (#7196945) Homepage
      Since the link from the original slashdot post is gone... here's the information on the conversion process.

      -----------

      IMAX(R) DMR

      From traveling back in time to the pre-historic age of the dinosaurs, to looking into the future on board the International Space Station, the unparalleled image and sound quality of the The IMAX ExperienceO transports audiences to places far beyond the reach of most people. Now, through the magic of IMAX(R) DMR(TM) (Digital Re-Mastering), movie-goers can also experience the larger than life adventure, drama and emotion of their favorite Hollywood films, such as "Apollo 13," which won two Academy AwardsO in 1995, and Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones. Coming to IMAX theatres this Spring and Fall will be The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions, the second and third chapters in the Wachowski Brothers' revolutionary film trilogy. The release of The Matrix Revolutions on November 5, 2003 will mark the first time ever that a Hollywood live action event film is released concurrently in 35mm and in IMAX's format.

      IMAX motion picture systems, invented and developed by IMAX Corporation (IMAX), are the most technically advanced motion picture systems in the world. Images of unsurpassed size, clarity and impact, enhanced by a superb specially-designed six-channel, multi-speaker sound system, are projected onto giant rectangular screens, up to eight stories high and 120 feet wide in IMAX(R) theatres, and in IMAX(R) Dome theatres, onto domes as large as 27m (88'-5") in diameter.

      The film format used by IMAX (15/70) image is ten times larger than a conventional 35mm film and three times bigger than a standard 70mm film. The sheer size of a 15/70 film frame, combined with the unique IMAX projection technology, is the key to the extraordinary sharpness and clarity of films exhibited in IMAX theatres.

      IMAX(R) DMR(TM)
      IMAX Corporation has developed a total system to re-master 35mm live-action films into 15/70 film format for exhibition in IMAX theatres. Known as IMAX DMR this proprietary, patent pending technology digitally enhances the image quality of 35mm motion pictures for projection onto screens up to eight stories high and up to 120 feet wide. The resulting images are every bit as big, sharp and beautiful as those of the classic, visually stunning films originally produced in the 15/70 format.

      The core of the IMAX DMR process is based on our in-depth knowledge and understanding of the 15/70 format and the projection environment in IMAX theatres.

      There are no other systems available that can provide this degree of image enhancement. IMAX DMR is much more than just a software tool. It is a complete, purpose-built, end-to-end system designed to accommodate the high demands of day-and-date releases.

      The Process
      IMAX DMR starts by scanning, at the highest resolution possible, each individual frame of the 35mm film and converting them into digital images.

      Next, proprietary image enhancement tools, developed and refined over many years, optimizes each image for printing onto 70mm film. The useful information contained within the small area of the 35mm format is analyzed. Some of the techniques used to enhance the digital image include sharpening, color correction, grain removal, and eliminating unsteadiness.

      The enhanced digital signal is then recorded onto 15/70 film resulting in a visual presentation which, when projected on IMAX's state-of-the-art rolling loop projection system, is bright, crisp, steady and absolutely stunning.

      The highly automated IMAX DMR system allows the process to meet rigorous film production schedules.

      Sound
      For IMAX DMR releases, the original soundtrack of the 35mm film will be re-mastered for IMAX's six-channel loudspeaker system. Unlike conventional theatre sound systems, IMAX sound systems are uncompressed, full fidelity and use proprietary l
    • If you don't bother to read the article then at least read the slashdot post.
      We mentioned earlier this year that the Matrix sequels would be Imax-sized.

  • Metreon (Score:3, Funny)

    by _ph1ux_ ( 216706 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @07:02PM (#7196857)
    As much as I would like to be against big ass theatres and corporate mega-complexes, the metreon in SF is actually a great theatre. I will definitely be seeing this there...
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Metreon (Score:3, Funny)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 )
      "As much as I would like to be against big ass theatres"

      What's this with white men not likin big booties?

    • Re:Metreon (Score:3, Informative)

      by Davak ( 526912 )
      I realize the parent is in jest... but we should be supporting the little guys here.

      For the independent fan-produced version of the matrix, you can download it [fanimatrix.net] here.

      Obviously the graphics are not as sweet, but the story keeps the same feeling and theme...

      Support these guys!

      Davak
      • but we should be supporting the little guys here

        Why?

        I mean... Why?

        I want to see a movie, not make a statement.

        If there wasn't a Hollywood "Matrix," then there wouldn't be an "independent fan-produced version of the matrix."

        the story keeps the same feeling and theme...

        Boy, that's a relief! I just hate it when independent film-makers not beholden to Hollywood and with lots of time on their hands use the Internet to distribute something new and original, don't you?

  • woohoo! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Quasar1999 ( 520073 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @07:03PM (#7196863) Journal
    Oh, I really hope someone can get a digital rip of that... better than DVD quality screener!
    • Algolith [algolith.com] has the software if you just wanna do it yourself.

      APPLICATIONS
      Mastering
      Conforming of multi-format sources
      SDTV to HDTV up-conversion
      HDTV and Film down-conversion to SDTV
      HDTV cross-conversion
      Video to Film conversion
      HDTV to IMAX conversion
      Edge correcting of computer generated animations
      Interlacing of computer generated animations

      REQUIREMENTS
      Apple Shake 3.0 software
      Mac OS X
      Linux

      Davak

    • You'd need a 1100-node dual-g5 supercomputer to hold all that! Or a soviet russian beowulf cluster of PDAs might do the trick

    • Re:woohoo! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Saeger ( 456549 )
      How about a HDTV-quality Matrix Revolutions trailer [emptylogic.com] instead? 2.5mins in 122MB, and it looks awesome.

      Finally a reason to upgrade my old 1.2GHz athlon: to play HD video without dropping frames... :)

      --

    • " Oh, I really hope someone can get a digital rip of that... better than DVD quality screener!"

      Yeah, you'd probably need a badass display setup to view it. Maybe something like this [slashdot.org] spread around you in a dome configuration.

      Wow, how long before someone gets a multimonitor setup that mimicks IMAX? Now THAT would be impressive.

  • Seen it. It rocks in IMAX (Score:3, Informative)

    by billstr78 ( 535271 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @07:07PM (#7196879) Homepage
    It has been out on the Sony Metrion IMAX theatre in San Francisco for some time now. It is truley a different movie when seen on the big big screen. The action scenes are emersive and you really feel like part of the movie.

    Probably does not translate as well to IMAX as some other films with more picturesque fly-by shots of detailed landscapes like say... LOTR, but still worth a second (or Nth) view
    • This is referencing revolutions (3rd film) not reloaded (2nd film)

    • Overloaded? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Davak ( 526912 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @07:38PM (#7197019) Homepage
      I am worried that the matrix series is going to end with "not a bang but a wimper."

      Releasing the movie on IMAX and the regular theater at the same time doesn't make sense (cents?) otherwise.

      The last matrix flick did it correctly. Fans will go to the regular theater to see it on release day... and then spend the extra dollars to see it larger than life later.

      For the third flick, die hards will see it on IMAX and then just purchase the DVD later... leaving the theaters out of the action. Are they afraid that after people see it in the theater that there will not be enough excitement to pay off the IMAX investment?

      Is it going to be that big of a dud? Gawd, I hope now.

      I guess alternatively this could just be IMAX's way of trying to position itself as a theater alternative...

      Davak

      • For the third flick, die hards will see it on IMAX and then just purchase the DVD later... leaving the theaters out of the action. Are they afraid that after people see it in the theater that there will not be enough excitement to pay off the IMAX investment?

        I think this is a move to protect the general moviegoing public from having to sit with the diehards. I know the high school crowd at the theatre I went to made me wish for a bag of grenades. Maybe now I can stop scrounging.

      • I think they are trying to promote IMAX as a format as a whole. The IMAX is a great --IDEA--, but it is EXTREMELY underused. Big movies don't get into the action, and you're left with dumb movies about fishes and space.

        Now, the brothers have given IMAX a chance to showcase the biggest action movie to date and to compete with the theatres. It's their way of thanking IMAX for their innovative format, and giving them the push they need to get other Hollywood films to possibly (and in the far future) to rel
    • " It is truley a different movie when seen on the big big screen. The action scenes are emersive and you really feel like part of the movie."

      I wanted to take a potshot at Matrix Reloaded here, but something occured to me. Did they edit the movie's length for IMAX? I sorta vaguely recall reading something about the movie being made shorter for IMAX. 1.) Is this true? 2.) Did it help the pacing of the movie?

      That movie was entirely too long for my tastes, but if they had edited it down to say 45 minutes
      • I haven't seen Reloaded on IMAX yet (going tomorrow, hopefully) but I read somewhere that it has not been edited. IMAX theatres used to only be able to handle 2 hour films or less, but many (most?) of them have gotten upgrades that let them handle 150 minute movies. Reloaded clocks in at 138 minutes so theatres with the upgrade should be able to handle it.

        That's a LOT of film though...

  • Popcorn! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Davak ( 526912 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @07:10PM (#7196891) Homepage
    One thing will keep me from seeing this at my local IMAX.

    Popcorn!

    They don't allow food and beverages in the IMAX here. What's a movie without a $10 bucket of popcorn and a 7.50 keg of cherry coke!?!

    How long before everything is IMAX since we can approximate the current movie setups with our wide screens and dvds?

    Davak
    • They have popcorn and drinks at the Boeing IMAX in Seattle (the only one I've been to) so I don't think that this is the rule nationwide.
    • I don't know what you get at your local theater for $17.50, but I would hesitate to use the terms "bucket" and "keg" to describe any drink or foor item available for purchase at most movie theaters.
    • One thing will keep me from seeing this at my local IMAX.

      I live in Australia you insensitive clod! Developing nations like Australia don't get to see it on IMAX despite there being a few IMAX screens about.

      I would gladly fly interstate to my nearest IMAX to see this film on the very-big screen, and you won't even bother to rock up over pop corn!!!
    • What's a movie without a $10 bucket of popcorn and a 7.50 keg of cherry coke!?!

      yeah! and let's not forget that $3.50 big pack of milk duds to go with that 'corn.

    • How long before everything is IMAX

      Very long time. IMAX runs film that is 2X the width, with the film running horizontally (another 2X multiplier) at 48 frames per second (2X the frame rate of 35mm). That makes the cost 8X what it would have been in 35mm.

      ...then there is the cost of the equipment, and of refitting all of the 35mm cinemas for IMAX.

      Of course, there is also the fact that running the film through the projector at that high speed also increases the damage that can be done if the equipme

  • This isn't anything special (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just to let you know, this isn't any better than seeing the film in a normal theatre. The film wasn't shot in IMAX, and the quality isn't any better. It's just an excuse to charge a couple of extra dollars.

    In fact, I think regular movies look worse shown in IMAX theatres, personally. It's like sitting in the front row at the theatre, the screen is just way too big.
  • will there still be dialog?

    that could be a deal breaker.
  • It's hard enough watching all the movement and action on a normal cinema screen. Neck strain as well as eye strain? :)

    I would get plenty of sleep before going to that screening, you'll need to be in good shape.

  • Thats great but.. (Score:2, Informative)

    by jelevy01 ( 574941 )
    Thats Great, I would love to see on an IMAX screen, too bad that movies for IMAX can't be longer then 120 minutes or so.. So it will have to be cut down from the regular version, as Reloaded was. Not to mention that it costs 12$ here in NYC.
    • They fixed this problem a long time ago.
      • Couldn't have been that long ago, since they had to edit the ~143 minute Attack of the Clones to fit just under a year ago, IIRC. (Seem to recall a November IMAX release...)
    • Well, because of the second matrix, a new, longer format of IMAX film exists (150 min) which fits the new Matrix in with room to spare

    • Re:Thats great but.. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Davak ( 526912 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @07:28PM (#7196971) Homepage
      The new upgraded systems/reels can support 150 minutes. I believe this change occurred about the time of the release of the second matrix movie.

      Davak
      • The new upgraded systems/reels can support 150 minutes. I believe this change occurred about the time of the release of the second matrix movie.

        But do they still clip the sides as another poster here mentioned? If that's the case, my interest in IMAX would be reduced to negative numbers. I don't care about any bells and whistles that much; I want to see the whole movie though, which means entire length and no clipping/pan-n-scan nonsense.

    • Honestly I think the review at bestbuy.com for Matrix Reloaded is fitting and accurate. I figure I'm going to buy the movie, edit it on the computer to get rid of everything that doesn't advance the movie or plot... and end up with about 30 minutes of material.

      Put in a 5 disc DVD changer and I can watch the entire marathon, assuming the 3rd one is as good as the first, and not have to get up. If the 3rd is as pathetic as the 2nd, then I might be able to fit the trilogy onto 2 dvds ;-)

      Link to BestBuy's [bestbuy.com]
  • Imax in 3D, now that would be cool!
    • 3D Imax is indeed cool, but there was one thing I noticed about it. A "dissolve" or "cross-fade" in 3D is really disorienting, at least for me. On a 2D screen everything is in the same plane of focus, but in 3D it's totally different. My brain just flipped out every time they did a dissolve, I couldn't figure out where to focus.

      If this is at all common, 3D movies will need some new visual idioms. Anyone else have this problem?

  • The winner is...not Sydney, Australia (Score:4, Interesting)

    by vchoy ( 134429 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @07:16PM (#7196919)
    As per usual, we 'Down Under' miss out :(
    I find it strange since the movie was produced in Sydney.
    (...and yes we do have Imax [imax.com.au])

    Oh wells.

  • TMD (Score:3, Insightful)

    by calcifer ( 649855 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @07:16PM (#7196924)
    See it on the big IMAX screen? Why would I want to pay to do that when I can download a low resolution TMD cam of a japanese subtitled screener off of Kazaa?

    I think we can all tell i'm not being serious, but my point is that when a good movie comes out, we will all pay to see it. if the movie industry tries to shovel some crap out the door and call it a movie, dont be surprised if we download that shit instead of paying for it.

  • saw it (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by sootman ( 158191 )
    I saw at the Sony Metreon, across the street from Moscone Center in SF, during Seybold last month. I was impressed--I had heard about other movies looking bad but it wasn't horribly grainy or anything. Nice to get that wide field of view without having to sit in the front row and look up at a distorted picture. Sounded good, too. The freeway scene was a blast. Too bad the movie was only so-so in the first place. Oh well, less than one month 'till the third.

  • I, for one, don't like movies on Imax (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kappelmeister ( 464986 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @07:30PM (#7196986)
    I saw Apollo 13 on IMAX when it was the brave new world of 35mm blowups, and I was underwhelmed. It was exciting, sure, but it didn't add a lot to the movie.

    For one, the movie's length exceeded the capacity of the reels for the projector, so they had to cut something like a half hour from it. Knowing the movie really well (it really outfoxes other space movies), it was irritating, but to my friend who had never seen it before, it was downright confusing. "Day 4" led to "Day 6"; not only did they cut some needed exposition, but a lot of the smaller moments that make the movie rich. Disclaimer: I think they've solved this issue and Revolutions will not be similarly cut. Which is why I'm presenting these criticism in increasing order of importance.

    More severe is the clipping of the sides. An IMAX screen is proportioned to 1.66:1, which is closer to the 1.33:1 of TV than the 2:35:1 of movies like Apollo 13. The solution is to cut off the sides, like in the rightfully derided pan-and-scan telecine methods for TV. So for all the progress we've made in getting the mainstream public to embrace letterboxing with DVDs, this is a leap backward.

    The print just didn't look good. I mean, whether you show it on a 80-foot screen or 800-foot screen, you only shot it with so much grain in the negative, and you can only get so much detail on the way out. It looked incredibly fuzzy and indistinct next to movies that were shot natively in the jumbo IMAX format. When you watch Everest and other IMAX-shot movies, they look like they have as much detail as a regular movie, but the screen extends far in every direction. Whereas blowing up 35mm 8 stories high produces roughly the same effect as sitting 3 feet away from a normal screen. They had to pipe the movie through all sorts of algorithms to reduce what would have been enormus "grain flicker," but instead, it looked awfully posterized and compressed.

    Which leads me to the biggest point -- it was just overwhelming. For "epic" sequences like the liftoff, sensory overload is a good thing. But a lot of the latter part of Apollo 13 is played in close-ups -- scene after scene of Tom Hanks's face, 8 stories high. The face is so huge, it takes extra work for the eye to scan and recognize it. You have to turn your head, not just your eye, to get a bearing of where a scene is taking place. It's like watching a regular movie through a paper towel roll.

    The director shot the movie with the assumption that you would be able to scan the whole frame relatively quickly. You can shoot close-up and your brain will understand that the scene goes beyond the edges of the frame. Directors who shoot for IMAX or other large-frame formats know to keep everything really, really wide, so you don't get disoriented. The purpose is to immerse you in a certain place, to eliminate the constant reminder in your peripheral vision that you are looking at a "finite" image. When you shoot it wide and project it big, the focal length ends up back in the league of normal movies, and that's what happens. But when you shoot it close and project it big ... you get the idea.

    In short, IMHO, IMAX is a great format for certain types of movies, but keep 35mm prints on the normal screen where they belong.
    • ... would you see a post that contained both

      I saw Apollo 13 on IMAX when it was the brave new world of 35mm blowups, and I was underwhelmed.

      and

      Which leads me to the biggest point -- it was just overwhelming
      (emphasis added)
      I guess it averages out to being simply "whelmed". :)

    • I'm sold on IMAX (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12, 2003 @08:15PM (#7197137)
      I saw the second installment of the Matrix on both a normal sized multiplex screen and an IMAX screen. Here is a list of the problems I noticed:

      1. A really blatant and horrible edit mistake during the big dance scene in Zion. For some reason, Trinity and Neo had sex, then met at the dance. Everything else was the same, and there were no other (noticable) edit problems.

      2. Due to the high level of detail, I could fairly easily notice when CG was being used. This was most problematical during the big 100 Smiths battle.

      What was good about it?

      Totally immersive! The superbike sequence was awesome, much better than the small screen. It's true that some of the fight sequences were more difficult to digest visually, but that was more than made up for by the awesome display of enormous images.

      As for your critiques:

      1. or one, the movie's length exceeded the capacity of the reels for the projector

      As you mentioned, this is no longer a problem.

      2. More severe is the clipping of the sides.

      As far as I could tell, there was no clipping. The film was shown in it's normal proportions, which meant that it did not take up the full height of the screen. Still, it was twice as large as the normal screen (4x the area).

      3. The print just didn't look good.

      I know what you mean by posterized. Yes, it was pretty obvious that some post production had taken place. But I wouldn't characterize it as not looking good. It was more than satisfactory.

      4. Which leads me to the biggest point -- it was just overwhelming.

      Yea, that's the idea. I like walking out of the theatre with my eyes moving in different directions!

      I am definitely going to see the next installments of the Matrix and LOTRs on IMAX. I'm not even going to think about going to the regular theatre. Big, flashy, epic films look great on big, flashy, epic screens.

      • Due to the high level of detail, I could fairly easily notice when CG was being used. This was most problematical during the big 100 Smiths battle.

        The "burly brawl" doesn't look realistic on any size screen. They did an excellent job mapping Smith's face onto all the extras hired to walk up and say something, but the body motion in the fight itself just isn't right. (And no, Matrix apologists, it's not because they're using superpowers.)

        Now, the highway scene... mmmmm... I'd definitely like to see

  • IMAX vs dlp [dlp.com]!

    Did the last matrix come out in dlp format?

    I would imagine that this digital format would be better than our typical theaters... but what about IMAX?

    I am almost certain that the last two starwars movies came out on IMAX and dlp... so maybe somebody could compare those for us.

    Davak

  • At the risk of being redundant... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by smithmc ( 451373 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @08:31PM (#7197185) Journal

    ...I recently saw Reloaded at the IMAX theater in the Luxor in Vegas. It rawked. I had an almost perfect seat, halfway up and halfway across. Very immersive, in some cases (e.g. the outdoor scenes) almost vertigo-inducingly so.
    • Well, it didn't totally blow me away; not like being a totally new experience. (I'd seen it before on a regular screen.) There were two things I did notice:
      • First, you could see the texture of the clothing and other materials a lot better; you could tell more easily what things were made out of.
      • The second is an extension of the first. You could see people's skin tones a lot better. Fishburne looks like a craggy asteroid in close-up, and I was surprised by the woman who played Persephone; Imax added about
  • This was announced before Reloaded hit theatres, and it was met with an equally fervent response. Oh, and by the way, the 35mm film hits theatres on November 5!

  • kanji with aalib (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Jeff Breker ( 681514 )
    The only way I want to view the matrix movies from now on is with a kanji-fied aalib...

  • You just know that in the Matrix they will be saved by some cute and furry creatures at the end that will immediately go on sale in stores everywhere on November 6.

    Watch Star Wars Episode III come out a winner and the Matrix Revolution turn out to be a dud. :-)
  • I refuse to see movies that are advertisements for other movies. When a feature-length picture ends in "to be continued", you should ask for your money back.

    As a result, I don't care about the latest lemming-creating release on this thread of mediocre cinema. Wake up. Don't be a pawn to hollywood.

    • Re:lemming (Score:3, Funny)

      by koreth ( 409849 ) *
      I refuse to see movies that are advertisements for other movies. When a feature-length picture ends in "to be continued", you should ask for your money back.

      Okay, guess I'll skip seeing that "Empire Strikes Back" flick, then. Thanks for the warning. I'll stay home and read "The Fellowship of the Ring" instead, or maybe watch a couple episodes of "24."

      • Good idea. While you're at it, why don't you move out of your parent's basement.
  • I contacted my Imax theatre in Regina, SK earlier this year, and they said that they were not equipped for feature-length IMAX films. How frustrating is that!?!

    However, if one of the IMAXs in Calgary decided to show all three in a marathon, I'd be there in a heartbeat...

  • The film is showing in three Imax theatres in three cities in all of Canada -- Halifax, Winnipeg and London (couple hours west of Toronto). What gives? Famous Players has spent millions placing Imax theatres in just about every Silver City/Metropolis multiplex they've built. Cities like Vancouver and Calgary have more than one Imax theatre, Vancouver alone has four or five of them. So much so that it is common place to see a feature film in an Imax theatre. I recently watched Underworld in an Imax theatre a

  • The last one was on IMAX, too.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Awptimus Prime ( 695459 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @06:17AM (#7198360)
    I saw Matrix Reloaded at the local IMAX. It was obvious the movie had not been shot for and IMAX screen. The aspect ratio seemed wrong. The resolution and focus also weren't that great in this movie, as there were a lot of scenes where the director wants you to look at a particular character so more focus is on them and not their surroundings. This is fine for the 16:9 cinema screen but when you are looking at a 3 story IMAX screen, your eyes want to wander and look at all the details. This, I thought, was a little disappointing. The smoother flowing scenes, such as scenes of Zion looked incredible.

    You'll also be able to see Trinity's blond nose hairs a number of times. The fact that the prop cars on the freeway action scenes have no motors in them becomes very apparent. I could go on for an hour about the visual flaws with the Matrix series on IMAX, but I'll stop my complaining there. Oh okay, one more: the oracle's skin. EWWWWWWWW. Get that lady some scar cream, stat!

    I'd say to go see the new one on IMAX, but not for the visual difference (it's just bigger, blurrier, and choppier looking), go for the audio. IMAX theaters tend to have very strong, very clear, sound systems that really add to action sequences. The can really feel the music when the fighting breaks out.

    It also would have helped a lot if the movie had been shot at ~60 fps. I've seen movies shot for IMAX and they didn't appear to have such jagged motion when panning and, overall, more focus and attention to visual details. The focus seems clearer for a whole scene in an IMAX native film, too.

  • Oh (Score:2)

    by ENOENT ( 25325 )
    I thought the title said "... to be released on Linux."

    That would be cool. Just "apt-get install matrix", load the USB brain electrode module, jack in, and you're good to go.

    Would you trust your brain to Windows?
  • And god was it awsome.
    the detail was amazing, and everything looked more lifelike. I was watching matrix on a rip aafterwords, and watch the previews, and everything seems to look much more computerized on non imax. i realy enjoyed watching it for the first time (and without watching any previews) in the imax. It was worth every penny of the $31 that it cost (those bulbs they use cost like $5000 and only last for couple thousand hours).

Slashdot Top Deals

"jackpot: you may have an unneccessary change record" -- message from "diff"

Close