Comments on: Open Forum Friday: Will IMAX Eventually Overtake 3D?

By: Maopheus

Maopheus — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:33:56 +0000

I think this is the only true way to achieve a three-dimensional effect, if we are still constrained to capture a natively two-dimensional image. The only real reason we have two-dimensional vision ourselves is that we have two eyes in our heads that both point in the same direction. Imagine how a deer or a squirrel would see things, with eyes almost opposite from each other. Until we can truly achieve a usable, realistic holographic effect, then this is the best we can do for 3-D.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 03:09:24 +0000

Hope so! They can surely fake both – but I’d take fake or real IMAX over fake or real 3D any day.

By: dan day

dan day — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:29:46 +0000

I wish it would, but it won’t. The reason? Every new, genuine IMAX screen requires building a new cinema, which costs millions. Showing 3D is a hell of a lot cheaper.

By: Colin

Colin — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:56:14 +0000

I go to IMAX showings locally (we have a stand alone IMAX and an AMC, “fake” IMAX) occasionally because of two reasons:

1. The sound quality and volume are incredible when compared to a regular theater.
2. The projectors and picture quality are much better than the usual digital projector.

The size of the IMAX screen vs. a normal theater screen is fairly irrelevant to me, but I feel it’s sometimes worth it (i.e. for The Dark Knight Rises) to see a movie in IMAX if I know that sight/sound are of the utmost importance.

By: Gerry

Gerry — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:57:02 +0000

Having recently bought a passive 3d TV and watched the opening ceremony of the olympics in HD 3d as well as olympic highlights in 3d, all with a highly impressive 3d effect, I have to say that 3d is here to stay.

The problems causing it’s current low adoption / regard are 1) that TV manufacturers are focusing on active 3d TV’s which induce headaches, don’t provide a decent 3d effect in bright daylight and use expensive re-chargable glasses, rather than on passive 3d TV’s.

2) that a lot of 3d movies are post converted rather than shot in 3d.

3) 3d blu rays are sold at excessively high prices.

4) a premium is charged for 3d cinema movies.

If TV manufacturers, film companies and cinema owners rectify the above then I feel that 3d will have a fighting chance at mass adoption.

I love imax, even though my local multiplex’s imax seems to be fake max.
I sincerely hope both technologies have a bright future.

Don’t forget we are at the dawn of both technologies. It will take time for good (and bad) film-makers to learn how to get the best out of both formats.

Look at early sound films and early colour films and you’ll see how shit some of them are.

Film-makers and greedy studios need time to come to terms with this new technology.

By: BobTheAvenger!

BobTheAvenger! — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:07:20 +0000

How about BetaMax In IMAX in 3D for adults?!?!?…

By: cap

cap — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:15:15 +0000

I think IMAX is still a rather niche thing and probably will stay that way. I just don’t see it as having a broad appeal that 3D (still) has. One big factor: kids. A kid probably wouldn’t give a shit about IMAX, but you give them those glasses and they loose their shit. That’s why pretty much evey single cartoon is in 3D. Plus 3D is still doing pretty well internationaly. It also seems like it’s easier and cheaper for the theaters to screen 3D movies, whereas for IMAX you have to have a whole different set up. So, in short… no.

By: patrik

patrik — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 07:12:11 +0000

One can only hope.. I’d take lieMAX over 3D.

By: John

John — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 06:31:42 +0000

IMAX, as long as it is not in the fake-max format (small theaters, often converted to IMAX) is in my opinion the best overall projection format. However, as noted, a lot depends on whether the filmmaker can use the format to the best advantage. I don’t think IMAX should be the release format for everything, but for certain event films it is great. I find 3D generally disappointing; other than Avatar, it has underwhelmed, and the glasses and darker screens are generally annoying.

By: FoxMulder

FoxMulder — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 06:31:05 +0000

I fucking hope so!

By: Roger C.

Roger C. — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:46:50 +0000

IMAX is overrated. I actually prefer 3D, and will pay extra. IMAX hurts my head.

By: Gil

Gil — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 00:43:32 +0000

I just hate the aspect ratio. But I’d rather that ugly aspect ratio than 3D any day.