Talk:IMAX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IMAX article.
Article policies
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Various early concerns

Should more attention be given to OMNIMAX, as it is a different film format, primarily in NZ the only imax theatre shut down over a year ago. (there's not much demand for rollercoaster documentaries) Tristanb 01:20 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Matrix Reloaded" was indeed done in imax, just saw it myself last week. Hephaestos

I've added it to the page, as i'd consider it a big movie (though i haven't seen it). Tristanb

Not sure why someone decided to delete the listing of the movie "Haunted Castle" as a film released to IMAX, especially after I added it specifically to write the detailed linked entry, but I'm putting it back in.

Good on you. It looks like it may have been accidently deleted when someone was sorting them. Tristanb
Yes, probably my fault as I had a simultaneous edit and had to recombine; thought I got all the new list items back in but probably missed that one.Jgm 17:50, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the Cirque De Soleil as a "see also" listing -- by that logic we could add links to everything that's ever been a subject of an IMAX movie. Perhaps a compromise might be a line in the article mentioning the film and linking Cirque in situ. Jgm 17:53, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"conventional 70 mm systems were neither steady enough for the 586x magnification."

"Neither" in this sentence implies a later "nor" that never arrives. I suspect it was there originally and got edited out, but I've changed "neither" to "not" for grammatical regularity. Lee M 17:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes Episode II, no Episode III

It is interesting to note that Star Wars: Episode II went through the DMR process to show on IMAX, there seems no news about the same treatment to Episode III.


I have heard otherwise - the DMR process wasn't done by imax themselves and they don't consider it to be a proper imax presentation. Apprantly they just blowed up image from normal film to imax size, but since this wouldn't pass the imax visual tests (they do on every film) - they didn't want it branded as an official IMAX film. you might wanna check this out...having said that it could have been another film i got mixed up ...its definately happened a few times to some films..

[edit] Cinerama

Cinerama came first, followed by Vistavision and Cinemascope. The article implys it came later, which is incorrect.

This is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold!! Atlant 00:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
They all were introduced within 2 years. It isn't a big difference in time and they are completely different processes. Rmhermen 04:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of venues on a separate page?

I see the list of IMAX venues growing more and more - I think that we should place it on a separate page, with maybe a max of 7 venues on the main page marked as "notable". What do other people think?

I am not sure we need any theaters on this page. How would you judge "notability"? Rmhermen 00:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I support this proposal - "notable" should be limited to the first, biggest, or, um. . . I don't know what other superlatives might apply; these would be easily covered in the text of the article and need not be in a list at all. Certainly any theater added to the list without comment is, by definition, not "notable". Jgm 14:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. We currently have an entry labeled "one of the biggest IMAX domes" (selected by me), but as soon as we are sure which is the biggest dome, this entry should be replaced. Peter S. 11:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need seperate headings for each US state that contains IMAX theatres? GeeCee 19:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I made them bold mini-titles, therefore saving space and making the page less US-centric in appearance. Peter S. 21:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, done. Enjoy :-) Peter S. 17:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

So what's with removing IMAX Philippines from the list? Can someone explain to me why you don't want to add the location at Mall of Asia, Philippines?

[edit] Tagged as 'Confusing' August 2005

I'm wondering what this refers to. The article seems pretty readable to me. GeeCee 15:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the artile needs to be straightend up a little and needs more info on the company. I might add Infobox Company to the article. --michael180 15:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
But those are just typical opportunities for improvement and aren't things deserving a "confusing" tag. If you are going to improve the article, please just do so; adding such tags to a generally solid article just muddles things for potential users. Also, the infobox you've added is messed up, please fix or delete. Jgm 15:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I have a request with the company for more info for the box and a better logo to go in it. I just emailed them for information, and when I get their respose, I will add it. So, please don't delete it for a few days. --michael180 15:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Possibly, should we move the info box to the section Corperate Info? --michael180 15:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
No responce yet from IMAX Corp. --michael180 14:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Press kits are apparently available if you send an email to info@imax.com. http://www.imax.com/ImaxWeb/faq.do?param_section=faqExperience&param_subLeftSelect=experienceSelect GeeCee 01:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I sent them an email on Monday at that address. On Tue, I got a message saying my request was forwarded to someone. I will write them again. --michael180 15:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Infobox moved temporarily to IMAX/Infobox--michael180 15:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Infobox Done and moved to article.--michael180 14:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Press citation

For anyone interested, Wikipedia (presumably this article) was cited as a source for a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article on IMAX technology: here (see the graphic, bottom left corner). Congrats to the editors. (This article may also be useful in editing our page.) Christopher Parham (talk) 05:34, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Notable Venue's Section

What about deleting this section? I just seems that everyone has their own opinion as to what is notable, and it keeps getting changed. I think this is a matter of opinion and warrants removal? Suggestions/Comments?--Gephart 22:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think some aspects are interesting enough to warrant this section, like "biggest screen", "earliest theatre" etc. Peter S. 10:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] "Cash Cow"

Anyone know what a cash cow is?--Geppy 00:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Check out Cash cow. Qutezuce 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dream Is Alive

Does anyone else think The Dream Is Alive deserves its own page on Wikipedia? IMAX is always quick to reference its success at the time of release, and it still stands today as a pretty decent time capsule of a time when things looked bright for the shuttle programme and NASA as a whole. --UD75 18:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Many movies have their own pages. If you think The Dream Is Alive deserves one, then all that needs to happen is for someone (you?) to be bold and write the article! :Atlant 00:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, fair enough. --UD75 09:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DMR

It'd be nice if, above the list of films to be adapted to IMAX, it mentioned what 'DMR' stands for. Search4Lancer 04:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

DMR actually stands for Digital Re-Mastering, as shown in the article. It was probably tagged DMR to avoid potential confusion with Digital Rights Managment (DRM).

[edit] Controversy

The "controversial" aspect of the documentary "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea" seems to have been about a certain part of the film's content, rather than the fact that it was filmed/shown as IMAX. That is, it would have been "controversial" for the same reasons regardless of format, unless there was something about IMAX that uniquely allowed the film to discuss the similarities between human and bacterial DNA. That said, does this paragraph really belong in this article at all, instead of in the article on the film? Jaeger5432 02:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Documentaries are much rarer in commercial theatres (Penguins and Michael Moore excepted) plus there common placement in locations where children frequently go on field trips where they might be forced to view such material, etc. I suppose you can make some arguments that Imax has a unique position. (Idon't know if these arguments were used or not.) Rmhermen 20:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The heading "Controversy" is not supported by the cited sources. One source is a first-person complaint posted on Space.com about the unavailability of this film at one IMAX location, which according to the editors of Space.com, was later shown (presumably negating the complaint.) The second source does not cite any controversy, but does document that "several" IMAX locations chose not to show the film. According to the quotations in that article, the film was not shown for local market demand consideration on the part of the local IMAX businesses. I propose that section should be renamed more appropriately, or removed entirely. Ptebault 23:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camera and Taking Lens Design

I'd love to see more mention of the camera and taking lens design. All I know about the subject is what I read years ago about the camera used on the Everest shoot in American Cinematography magazine and I don't have the article. I was especially impressed that they used standard Hasselblad/Carl Zeiss still camera lenses.

[edit] Highest grossing IMAX film

I removed the info in the list of IMAX films about which films were the highest and second highest grossing of all time since this seems to contradict it. Recury 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screen Sizes

Quote: "A standard IMAX screen is 22 m wide and 16 m high (72.6 x 52.8 ft), but can be larger." In Germany, the biggest screen (in Berlin) is 28 m wide and 21 m high. The other screens are not very much smaller. Is the size of "22 m to 16 m" really the average american screen size? 82.207.241.41 18:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC), who wrote big parts of the german IMAX article.

[edit] IMAX Magic Carpet

Quote: "# Futuroscope, France – theme park, only place containing all versions of IMAX theatres. (Normal, Dome, 3D, 3D Dome ("Solido") and IMAX Magic Carpet.)" What is Imax Magic Carpet?

It's two screens, one in front of the audience, the other below the audience. There is a glass floor to see the second screen. See also: IMAX Magic Carpet. Peter S. 23:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like In the Labyrinth at Expo 67 where the format debut.--Abebenjoe 04:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Widescreen?

Isn't an IMAX screen only slightly wider than a standard TV screen? How come there is no mention at all about the fact that regular movies that are shown on an IMAX screen are not in true widescreen? 69.203.64.174 00:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an immersive technology, so the concept of widescreen is immaterial. Do you care if the image is square, or a rectangle when the image takes up 180 degrees of your vision? No. So terms like 'widescreen' are redundant or even completely useless with this type of format.--Abebenjoe 04:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
What? Just because the screen is very large, that doesn't mean aspect ratio no longer applies. 69.203.64.174 (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:IMAX Theater.JPEG

Image:IMAX Theater.JPEG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:IMAX Theater.JPEG

Image:IMAX Theater.JPEG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Other use" relevance

In regards to the Other uses of live music concerts, an unknown person commented "These uses have no particular relevance to IMAX as a product or a company." I removed this comment from the article an I place it here for discussion 198.53.250.185 20:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV: "IMAX 3D"

I only read the 3D section, but the phrasing there strikes me at being overly positive and unreflected - thus not conforming to WP's Neutral Point Of View. (Actually, it reads like being copied directly out of an IMAX sales presentation.) I would rephrase the section myself, but feel not fit enough in the English language and lack knowledge of the subject matter. --85.176.45.128 07:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What specific elements? Nothing is popping out at me. Girolamo Savonarola 11:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I fixed most of it. Sorry for the confusion, I could've sworn a left a note here --lucid 11:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Permanent Imax Theater

I suspect that the current entry is in error. The first permanent Imax theater was the Cinesphere at Ontario Place, Toronto, Ontario, which opened in 1971.--Wee Charlie 16:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 65 mm?

Standard 5/70 films are shot on 65 mm negative because the 70 mm positive contains 5 mm of Soundtrack. But IMAX's 15/70 films are also shot on 65 mm negative although there ist no soundtrack on the 70 mm positive. Why? Can't it be filmed on 70 mm negative? 87.123.62.64 22:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC) (author of ~75% of the german IMAX article)

I don't know, but maybe there is a limited selection of 70mm negative film available, since the various other 65/70 cameras all use the 65mm negative format? Bealevideo (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked the guys of imax.com (vie e-mail). They answered that there exists no 70mm negative film nor is there any reason to develop such a product. 87.123.38.67 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Isnt IMAX sydney the biggest screen

Isnt the LG IMAX sydney screen the biggest in the world? RiseDarthVader (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind I just checked the list RiseDarthVader (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The LG IMAX theater in Sydney has a screen size of 36x28m. (That's what the Guinness Book of Records says.) 87.123.38.67 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The picture: Inside Luxor 1

The last picture is really in a poor quality. Blurred.