By perceiving it properly you will see the money I am NOT paying you as actual income.

I perceive a company that realizes they've been caught in their own bullshit, and is desperately trying to climb out.

Thanks for letting me know that if I'm closer to something, it appears bigger to me, IMAX. Spatial depth escapes me sometimes.

From now on, I will perceive an IMAX theater as a waste of money.

If a guy says size doesn't matter, he's lying and he's got a small screen.

Is it not still going to be a bubble though?

As someone who studied sensation and perception in college, I'm sorry to say that I'm with IMAX on this one. As long as the resolution of the display is equivalent to the bigger screens, it really doesn't matter how big it is, rather, it matters how large the visual angle occupied by the display is. Would you rather see a 50 foot high screen from 100 feet away, or a 100 foot screen from 2000 feet away? Clearly the smaller screen would make for better viewing, because it occupies a larger visual angle.

Viewing distance is just as important as screen size, that's why I tell everyone who's shopping for HDTV displays to use this chart to determine if they should spend the money for a 1080p display at their screen size and viewing distance. If the screen you're buying occupies such a small visual angle that your eye can't resolve the extra detail, you're just wasting money:

[www.carltonbale.com]

Now, I sort of doubt that the the visual angle at the small theaters is the same as the large theaters, but from a scientific perspective, IMAX is right in that it's the perception that matters.

Is that what Gelfond's wife tells him?

I love that so many people are complaining about the screen size(including my friend last night when we went to Star Trek) and most just completely forget that it's not IMAX just because the picture image is projected on a larger screen.

You're using an entirely different camera, film size and projector to create an IMAX film. The screen size is secondary to all that.

@Seth Bokelman:

My thoughts exactly, having also studied perception in college. It absolutely is about perception, which is why those little VR/Cinema goggles you put on look like huge screens.

What's debatable here is whether the smaller screens have the audience seated closer to create the perception, and whether they maintain the same resolution and a proportionally smaller pixel pitch.

I would just like to point out that IMAX isn't only about a large screen either. The IMAX movies that I've seen have been reformatted to include higher resolution, as well as better sound.

oh. and I missed the thread yesterday, but who didn't realize that screens can vary in size? I've been to an IMAX movie screen that is 6 stories tall. How would that fit within a normal movie theater?

If the image of Megatron on a gigantic IMAX screen doesn't actually make me cower in fear and possibly want to cry, it's not a real IMAX screen.

When I saw Transformers in one of the massive IMAX screens at a museum, the floors rumbled and I was actually slightly intimidated. Megatron is scary.

It seems strange to me that most people, until they were told of the bigger screens that exist else where, did not write into the consumerist with complaints about their IMAX "experience". As for the interview with Mr.Gelfond, it would seem to me that he is correct. I remember my virtua-boy (failed though the console may be) and how big the images seemed when my face was right up against them. This is not to say that the IMAX isn't a waste of money, rather, just defense from the other side.

Does this mean there will be no showdown with Aziz?

@pecan 3.14159265: bf made the mistake of taking his kid to Beowulf at the Imax. twenty seconds into the movie, she was all DADDEH IM SCURRRRRD!

@Seth Bokelman: Sorry, but I can definately tell, and am dissatisfied by the LIEMAX screens. If perception is a big deal, then they should set it up to be better perceived.

@fordpickup: +1. Very apt analogy.

It ain't entirely about screen size - "classic" IMAX gets much of its stunning impact from a huge film format, each frame uses about 8 times as much film as a standard 35mm frame. Digital IMAX in your local theater doesn't even use film (film vs digital is a discussion for another day) and the aperture from which the picture is projected is much smaller.

In other words, "it's all about pixels" and commercial-theater IMAX is at best a pale shadow of original IMAX.

"The obvious application is for poorly endowed males to cling to "perceived size" as the new panacea"

This is the same reason why I like to take photos of midgets holding my penis. It looks HUGE.

Wait. . . ummm, what was I saying?

@stopNgoBeau: I agree. Additionally, if people percieve a smaller screen as not having the value of a large screen, then they ain't gonna pay for it. Doesn't matter about expensive "sensory and perception" degrees- it's all about percieved value. Maybe some people who "studied" economics and/or retailing could give a better answer.

@Wendy Sloan: I think the first mistake was going to see Beowulf.

There were a surprising amount of kids when I saw Transformers in IMAX. I mean, giant transforming robots are cool, but when Megatron is in your face, on a 50 foot screen...there were some kids who had to leave. I thought it was common sense not to take an already slightly scary kid experience and make it a full blown nightmare by taking kids to witness it on a 50 foot screen.

@Seth Bokelman:

It seems to me that the problem is, IMAX has built its brand on one thing: Absolutely ginormous screens with the stadium seats to bring you right up close. If the 'new' IMAX does not have the same type of seating to bring the whole audience right up close, so that they have a similar experience, perceptively, then it's not the same thing. All IMAX would have to do to stave off most of this criticism is make some sort of obvious note to differentiate between 'real' IMAX and the newer, smaller 'experience'.

From my comment in the last IMAX thread:

I gotta say, I think it's pretty skeevy of them not to distinguish between a real IMAX screen and the smaller one in some way. According to the articles, a lot of people *wanted* to do that--pretty much everyone but IMAX themselves.

'But Gelfond flatly rejected this possibility, offering an absurdly flawed analogy with BMW automobiles. He said that the German carmaker offers the 7-series line of larger, more powerful, luxury models as well as the smaller, entry-level 3-series cars. "People don't say 'The 3 isn't a real BMW because it's smaller.'"

Of course, this ignores the fact that the model numbers, to say nothing of the prices, clearly distinguish BMW's different product lines in consumers' minds, while maintaining the unity of the brand. No car buyer believes he has bought a $125,000 760Li only to receive a $30,000 328i.'

Building your brand on one thing for years upon years, and then telling your customers that your brand has never been about that one thing when they notice that you're giving them less, is worthy of ridicule IMO.

If they feel and believe that (and I know what they are saying is correct), they are completely saying that they screw the customer.

That is what I hear anyway.

I call BS on the small "IMAX" screens.

I hit one at one of the local multiplexes and they didn't move anything. They simply taped off the first 4 rows of one of the standard theaters and turned the volume on the sound system up to the point where it was starting to distort.

No floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall just a regular screen with overloaded speakers.

Yeah, perception is that fake IMAX theaters aren't worth extra money. The fake IMAX screens used to be what people referred to as a "movie theater."

OK then, don't charge $16 per ticket. Normal tickets are $10, IMAX (real IMAX) are $16. Charge $12. DONE. If you charge me for a Tahoe and deliver me a Blazer, I'm going to be pissed. Period. Even if it's larger than my old Chevette, and I "perceive" it as being Tahoe-sized as I cruise down the highway. Why is this asshole even trying?

"We typically take out the first four rows of seats in a theater and move the screen forward so it's a lot farther forward in an IMAX theater."
Wouldn't removing the last 4 rows have the same effect?

@Seth Bokelman: I agree with Seth, but I do think that IMAX is missing the pitch with this recent defense. I don't think that they should be defending the size and perception of the screen, but instead should be pointing out that you actually get to watch the movie in HD in an IMAX theater.

I always pay a bit more to see a movie in the IMAX because the picture is as crisp as my 1080p home projector (with a HD source) and the sound is as full as my home 7.1 system. I feel cheated when I watch a movie for only a few dollars less on a regular screen.

My home experience is better than the theater unless it's IMAX.

"long, strong and down to put the friction on"

+1 to Phil for the Baby got back reference

I went to see dark knight in IMAX at bridgeport village in Tigard oregon...as soon as i walked in i knew something wasnt right. Having lived in nyc my whole life and attending movies at Sony/loews/amc whatever Lincoln Center Imax...as well as the natural history imax...i was severely disappointed, and just chalked it up to NYC vs. the rest of the country. Not once did i imagine that it was a widespread problem until i read it here last week.

The fact that its basically a company policy is even worse.

@ThinkerTDM:

If people perceive a smaller screen, then the IMAX theatre is not set up correctly for Gelfond's argument to hold true, and people will have something legitimate to complain about.
You will have a tough time arguing the theory of perception. The argument should instead be whether the perception is created, because that's where Gelfond does not elaborate and that's where you can poke holes in his statement.

@KyleOrton: Not all use the trickery. Some are dedicated imax theaters built for imax and therefore have real larger screens.

Perception can be a decent argument, but 50% more money for a 20% bigger screen isn't that great of a deal. I think the bigger problem is not that it isn't "true imax," but that people are paying the "true imax" price.

Frankly, I think all theatres should be looking into upgrading their experience if they want to compete with home theatres.

I have seen some crappy PR excuses but this is one of the worst. Go see a REAL IMAX screen and then go to a mall multiplex and watch a faux-IMAX screen and tell me there is no difference. The perception they are really concerned about is how much they perceive is in their bottom line.

Unfortunately, they are ripping you off for more than screen size. The new miniMax theatres are using the same digital projectors that your run of the mill multiplex is using. Same resolution, nothing special. You could just sit in the first few rows of any stadium seating theatre for the same effect. No more IMAX for me.

@WhitlawOdysseus: optimal seating distance combine with size = immersion. That immersion is only realistic with the proper perceivable resolution as well.

Calling a bigger, digital, slightly higher resolution image in a more standard theater "IMAX" = FAIL.

I agree with the rep that, in theory, IMAX can be achieved in smaller theaters but from the way that they are described they would nowhere near touch the rep that "classic" IMAX has held for me.

Great, IMAX has gone THX.

@fordpickup: although he can apparently fool your perception by shoving it in your face.

@KyleOrton: Except at the Science Museum.

WOW. I never realized my computer had an IMAX screen until I decreased my viewing distance to 1mm. AMAZING. But why pay $16 to go to the theater?

@D0rk: but the schema in our brains is BIG SCREEN!

really, when the only IMAX you've ever been to is the AMC/Loews @ Lincoln Square in NYC, the technical details don't matter...if i can't get vertigo trying to get to my seats, it's not IMAX

@superberg: yeah the tickets for my imax-lite star trek in NH were 14 bucks...whereas the tickets for the SUPER DE DUPER YOU GET VERTIGO IN THE FIRST ROW IMAX in NYC were 16 bucks (or something, I had a free pass so I only paid 6 bucks). Which seems like the better bargain, 16 bucks in NYC for vertigo inducing theater, or 14 bucks in new hampshire for an amped up regular movie screen?

They can make the screens whatever size they want, and I'll just rent the movie from Netflix.

@ModernTenshi04:

"We took out the first four rows and moved the screen closer"

Why? A little math tells me that leaves the front rows the same distance as before, there's just 4 less rows of seats. Right?

Plus the FauxMax screens are definitely not wall to wall and floor to ceiling.

But maybe he's right. I'm just not trying hard enough!

@Seth Bokelman:
WRONG-O, Bokelman. While I agree that arc seconds are arc seconds, it's when you put them up next to something ELSE that it makes a difference. Otherwise, we'd just squat down next to one of those actresses who wear bedsheets and spray paint themselves green and say "Oooh! I've just seen the Statue of Liberty!"

Relative size can fool the eye, but it can also amaze the soul. A real IMAX theatre is something that can make you gasp with astonishment. The first few films all prominently featured scenes where the audience (in virtual first-person) was "launched" over a cliffside or flew past dropping landscapes. The sensation caused vertigo and even nausea in many viewers.

In a LIEMAX theatre, you do have better than normal resolution and sound. There's no doubt about that. However, it's not a "full IMAX" experience, no matter how much they try to capitalize on the name recognition. And the difference, as they so conveniently point out, can be made up by sitting a few rows closer in a regular theatre- so why pay more?

@winstonthorne: The Air and Space museum annex in Virginia charges $12 for the full IMAX screen. I've yet to see the IMAX lite theaters charge less than that, unfortunately.

@bagumpity: Yeah but were many people complaining about the smaller screens before someone in the media pointed out the screens actually are different sizes?

If everyone was ok with it before, why the complaints now?

@winstonthorne: Agreed!

Yay for the Sir Mix A Lot reference! :D

I saw Star Trek on one of the flat IMAX screens and it was a far more enjoyable experience than seeing Dark Knight in an IMAX dome. The picture was crystal clear and there were no aspect ratio issues. The next big action movie I see will definitely be on one of the new IMAX screens.