CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

[Spanky Ham]

ribaud,
I gave my review in another thread, but I went to an IMAX digital to see the movie. Did you see it on an original IMAX or whatever they call it? I was planning on going to the original IMAX, but I hated the movie so much I didn't want to waste my time or money for what amounted to a two hour tech demo.


Crabb,
I don't know if my best friend echos the people that dislike Cars, but he considers it a rip off of Doc Hollywood. This might be why it doesn't get a higher rating. Don't argue with me though, because I love the movie.

[ecrabb]

I see where your friend is coming from, but all almost all the Pixar movies (and for that matter, a great many movies) borrow from other stories. In fact, why would he just stop at Doc Hollywood? Does he honestly not realize that the basic "big-city guy/girl stuck in a small town, hates it, then meets a girl/guy and ends up staying" premise has probably been used at least 100 times? You should ask him if he's ever watched any movies older than Doc Hollywood!

SC

[ribaud]

S. H.: The IMAX theaters at which I saw the movie are both of the traditional 70mm type. Can't say as I'd heard of digital IMAX, and the idea does not warm the cockles of my heart. On the other hand, I did see both Coraline and Beowulf in Real3D (i.e., digital), and it seemed fine for them. Even as detailed as Beowulf's images are, Avatar's are far richer. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe digital projection is only 1080 lines, no? (There are Sony SXRD projectors with 2160 lines, but for 3D use apparently they're set up to project the two images simultaneously, one over the other on the imaging device, so you're back to 1080.) I sit close enough to the screen in any theater so that I can just take in the whole image at one time; at that range, the difference between 70mm and digital is very hard to miss.

[Spanky Ham]

Crabb,
It was a specific scene that I guess turned him off. The one where McQueen and Sally go for the drive. I have never seen D.H., but apparently there is a scene just like this. I don't know, as I like the movie and it might actually be my favorite.

Ribaud,
I am not sure where you live, but digital IMAX came out last year (IIRC). I don't particularly care for it, but some people that I trust and have a more critical eye than me said it was a better experience on the IMAX digital. Like I said, I would have liked to compare it with the original IMAX, but the movie sucked so bad I decided against it.

[ribaud]

S.H. : Judging by the speed with which I catch up to the latest technology, maybe I live in Outer Mongolia. More typically, I live a bit west of Chicago. From what I saw, I'm fairly certain I saw film-based IMAX; seems to me the Wikipedia entry on IMAX gives resolutions that suggest IMAX digital can't be too much better than 'conventional' digital. On one occasion, I saw a Real3D presentation of Avatar and an (in-focus) presentation in IMAX an hour later; the images were very different.

[ecrabb]

I've only seen a couple of IMAX presentations over the years. The old traditional "flat" IMAX theater running films created for IMAX (70mm) with the steep seating was truly a sight to behold.

Then, last year I saw Kung Fu Panda with a friend in the local IMAX. At that point, I made the decision I would never go see another "traditional" feature again in an IMAX theater. It was a "dome" style IMAX, and it just made no sense having the image huge, wrapped around, geometrically distorted, and soft-focused at the edges. In short, I thought the presentation sucked. Obviously, they're just going for "huge", image quality be damned. I'm not exaggerating when I say I FAR preferred the presentation of Kung Fu Panda in my own little home theater to the IMAX dome presentation. I actually enjoyed the little IMAX technology demo that precedes the feature presentation more than I enjoyed the feature itself... And Kung Fu Panda is actually a good movie!

Personally, I think IMAX presentations should be limited to traditional "made for IMAX" POV-style films. It's immersive, and it makes sense. A traditional film just blown up for a huge screen just looks ridiculous, IMHO. I'm sure the masses think it's great, but I'm not interested AT ALL if what I saw was typical.

SC

[ribaud]

Crabb: The IMAX screens I saw were flat or nearly so; there was no curvature in the image. I have seen dome-style IMAX; great for stunts but not for a movie. I also saw Fantasia 2000 in IMAX (again, essentially flat), on 7th Ave. in NYC, Jan. 2000, I think. I go to a theater to see an image larger than I can get at home and since I can get the sound and better quiet at home, those are no draw for me. Image quality is important to me. Most movies I have seen I would not pay extra to see in IMAX -- they don't have that level of detail or at least it doesn't strike me as important to the movie. Thus also my comments above regarding digital IMAX -- until there are projectors with far better resolution, I'm not interested.

[overclkr]

You guys can offer to blow me and you still wont get my G90's.

[Clarence]

where you been dog?

[overclkr]

[Graham Johnson]

[mhalsan]

I agree- the 3D conversions aren't so good. I saw the conversion of Nightmare before Christmas about 4-5 years ago, the intro was cool, and there were a couple of scenes with exaggerated 3D pop-out.

Meet the Robinsons and A Christmas Carol (Jim Carrey's version) both looked good........Alice in Wonderland didn't. I see the Blu-Ray of that title is skipping the 3D.

It's a shame about that hard-to-find chip that the G90's need- otherwise I would have gone with that model myself.


Thanks, Mark

[HaydnG90]

[stefuel]

Tick tick tick tick...........................

[betel]

[Spanky Ham]

[HaydnG90]

[Spanky Ham]

Having seen G90s, I don't believe they are any better than 9500s stock or modded.

[overclkr]

In my opinion, the G90 is leaps and bounds better than the Marquee just based on the firmware alone. Not only that, but the G90 is also brighter even with the correct c element.

[Nashou66]