Jump to content

Talk:List of films released in IMAX/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

"Studio" column removed

I've taken out the column listing the studio for a couple of reasons. (1) Very few visitors to a list of Imax DMR films is going to be interested in the studio that released the movie. If they *are*, they can easily click on the film title to obtain the information. (2) Many of the entries were wrong in any case as they were confusing the studios with the distributors. Barry Wom (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Cars 2

I have a feeling that Barry Wom was in an IMAX market that actually agreed to show Cars 2, because he reverted my edit that most IMAX theatres refused to show it at all on the grounds that 5 days is too short a run for an IMAX movie. My market (Knoxville) isn't showing Cars 2 in IMAX at all. I actually checked all IMAX showtimes in Knoxville on Fandango up to June 29, and all those IMAX showtimes before June 29 were for Super 8. It's times like these that make me wish there were TWO IMAX theatres in each market with one. --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The film opened in over 160 IMAX screens worldwide. Can you find a citation that confirms your assertion that some IMAX theatres "refused" to show Cars 2 because of its limited engagement ? Also, some IMAX theatres are showing the film much longer than five days - for example, the San Antonio RiverCenter IMAX has it scheduled through 14th July.
Not that it's relevant, but I'm "in an IMAX market" (the UK) where it's unlikely there will be *any* IMAX screenings. It doesn't open here for another month and it will clash with the release of the next Harry Potter film. Barry Wom (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted (again) your edit regarding the "overlap" of Cars 2 and Transformers. Not only is this not "crucial" information as you claim, it (presumably) only applies to the US. See WP:CSB. The staggered nature of international film distribution and the high number of IMAX releases this year has meant that overlapping releases are inevitable. Barry Wom (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
What if I said in my edit that Transformers 3 "overlaps with Cars 2 in some US markets"? Then will you accept it? --Ryanasaurus007 (talk)
WP:WORLDVIEW states that "popular culture [...] is often covered as if only the US or only the UK exists (depending on the origin of the Wikipedian)". What makes the fact that Cars 2, Super 8 and Transformers have overlapping IMAX runs in "some markets" in the United States of significant encyclopaedic interest to be noted in this list ? There have been dozens of examples of overlapping IMAX runs worldwide. Many IMAX theatres handle this by screening multiple DMR releases on the same day - for example, the Darling Harbour Sydney IMAX is screening Transformers three times daily and Cars 2 twice daily. Would you expect every instance of this to be of notable interest ? Of course not. It's trivial information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Wom (talk • contribs) 14:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, the UK is getting IMAX screenings of Cars 2 after all, although it doesn't appear to be a day and date release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Wom (talk • contribs) 12:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearer indication of DMR, Digital, and IMAX movies

First off, I think the title should me changed. Most of the movies on this list are main-stream Hollywood movies. There is, also, a list of IMAX documentaries on Wikipedia. So, if we could changed the title to List of Main-Stream Hollywood Movies projected in IMAX or something similar. Also, if we could have more information about what process each movie went through. I've read plenty of articles and saw several interviews about film purists with clear indications about whether digital or film is better that that would be important information. As well as movies up-converted for the DMR process. Mind you, I imagine that that would get complication. Prometheus, for example, was shot on Redcode 5K. I've had confirmation from a professional that Red is good enough for IMAX. However, the IMDb states that there was a digital intermediate 2K master. Now, I don't know if this was for pre-viz for the SFX team, the sound team, or some other phase in production. But, it's got me wondering if I saw true 5K footage when I saw it in IMAX or if it was down-converted before being blown back up again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crcook84 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

X-Men: Days of Future Past sneak preview

I want to bring something up here before it should escalate into a full-blown edit war. See, I went to The Amazing Spider-Man 2 at the local IMAX, and I saw the X-Men: Days of Future Past sneak preview during the closing credits, so I altered the film's entry to make note of its appearance. However, an anonymous editor apparently decided the sneak preview wasn't on IMAX screenings simply because Days of Future Past wasn't getting an IMAX release. As someone who's been to a screening of TAS2 in IMAX 3D, I beg to differ (on the issue of the sneak preview's appearance during the credits of TAS2, that is). --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Mad Max: Fury Road

I added a line to announce the release of Mad Mad Max:Fury Road. The official IMAX page doesn't speak about it: https://www.imax.com/movies/#1 and even the movie isn't announcing it at all: http://www.madmaxmovie.com/ But some venues are announcing the film in IMAX 3D: https://www.imax.com.au/films/mad-max-fury-road/ or http://pathe.ch/fr/imax I have no clue which countries will indeed have a release of that film.

The Martian

The page for The Martian explicitly states that the film was shot with 3D cameras, so I am removing the caption on this page saying it was post-converted from 2D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.86.166 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Laser IMAX projected films

Are the movies indicated as laser projected re-mastered to use IMAX HDR and 12 track sound as well (similar to Dolby Cinema) or does the laser projection tag only indicate the movie was / will be played by laser equipped IMAX venues? Versova (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Versova, I do not see anything on the article to suggest they are re-mastered. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of IMAX DMR films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Pocahontas: 25th Anniversary Edition in IMAX theatres

Disney's Pocahontas: 25th Anniversary Edition will be re-released exclusively in IMAX theatres and large format cinemas worldwide on January 1, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.226.32 (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Should we note when a film was only released in 2D in one region, but was released in 3D in other regions?

Looking at the posters from upcoming releases from Warner Bros. in North America, they only say "See it in RealD 3D and IMAX". Given on how IMAX wants to show fewer films in 3D in North Americain theaters, this is leading me to believe that Warner Bros. is no longer going to release films in IMAX 3D in North America, even if a regular 3D version is available. Should we begin to mark films that only got a 2D release (but a regular 3D release) in one region, but got a 3D release in other regions?--MysteryMii215 (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 59 external links on List of IMAX DMR films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Ready Player One Aspect Ratio

Several editors appear to be a bit confused by the use of "cropped" vs. "opened up" with respect to the IMAX aspect ratio for this film.

An aspect ratio is "opened up" in IMAX cinemas when more picture information is displayed than in a non-IMAX cinema.

However, for IMAX presentations which have less picture information displayed than in a non-IMAX cinema, the aspect ratio has been "cropped".

This latter scenario is what has happened with Ready Player One. It was filmed in anamorphic 35mm with a camera negative aspect ratio of 2.35:1. In a non-IMAX cinema, this aspect ratio is retained and the full picture is displayed.

The IMAX aspect ratio is allegedly 1.90:1 and if this is true it has had picture information removed (or "cropped") from the sides.

Hope this makes sense - if not, please discuss here.

Barry Wom (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


What you're saying is that the movie's 2.35:1 aspect ratio would be considered cropped on an IMAX screen, but when it's formatted to fill the entire screen, you still say it's cropped from the left and right side, which is completely false.

Every digital IMAX screen has a screen size of 1.90:1, and when the movie's 2.35:1 aspect ratio is formatted to 1.90:1 for IMAX, all it does is open up the picture information on the top and bottom, and definitely does not crop anything on the left and right side.

So when you say "Aspect ratio cropped to 1.90:1", people will think it will have more black space on the top and bottom, which does not make sense at all. Also, in case you didn't notice, all the other movies on the page like 'Blade Runner 2049' and 'Black Panther' that had their aspect ratio formatted for IMAX say "opened up". Here's a link that shows a visual representation between 2.35:1 and 1.90:1.

[1]

RJSalt93 (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Ryan Salter

Take a look at the image in the reference you supplied.
On the right is a frame which matches (more or less) the aspect ratio of the image which was captured by the digital camera used on Sully. To extract the image on the left, which matches the aspect ratio which would have been seen in a non-IMAX cinema, it was cropped by removing picture information from the top and bottom.
In this case (and in the case of Blade Runner 2049, Black Panther etc.), the IMAX aspect ratio has indeed been "opened up" from the 2.39:1 version shown in non-IMAX cinemas.
Take a look at the frame on the left again. This matches the aspect ratio of the image which was captured by the 35mm anamorphic camera used for Ready Player One. That's all the picture information there is. There's no more information at the top or bottom. It's impossible to "open up" the aspect ratio to 1.90:1. The only way to produce a 1.90:1 image from the 2.35:1 one is to crop picture information from the left and right.
As for your claim that "people will think it will have more black space on the top and bottom" - why would they think that? If I read that a picture has been cropped to 1.90:1 for display on a 1.90:1 screen, I'd automatically assume that the picture will fill the screen.
Which it will, of course. But there will be more picture information on display in a non-IMAX cinema.
Barry Wom (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I emailed an IMAX representative about this, and it turns out the movie will have a constant 2.40:1 aspect ratio in IMAX. So really this whole issue is pointless.

He also said I quote "Cropping the sides of the image and blowing it up to 1.90 would cause image degradation."

RJSalt93 (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Ryan Salter

Yes it seems the aspect ratio is indeed 2.39:1 throughout so this issue is pointless. Good job I covered my arse by saying "allegedly" and "if this is true"!
What a shame, though, that you managed to contact someone from IMAX who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. I'm guessing it was someone from the marketing department rather than the technical department.
If you want to pull your "representative" up on this, ask them the following:
"The process of transforming 35mm film negative to IMAX involves scanning at up to 6K and manipulation of the image via the DMR process. Once in the digital realm, why would a minor crop of the image to 1.90:1 cause any image degradation at all, especially if the result is only intended for display on digital projectors with lower resolutions than the capture?"
Barry Wom (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, if the film was finished on a 2K digital intermediate, that IMAX representative would be correct, as the pixel density would be lower than every other movie displayed in IMAX, since you'd have to "zoom in" the image. Also, a crop from 2.40:1 to 1.90:1 wouldn't be minor, as you'd lose more than 20% of the image.
62.195.111.152 (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
In that scenario, they still wouldn't be correct. The pixel density would be lower than other movies displayed in IMAX which were derived from a narrower 2K intermediate, but it wouldn't be lower than the same movie presented letterboxed on a digital IMAX screen. You would also have improved brightness in the "zoomed in" version.
Barry Wom (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.imax.com/news/sully-aspect-ratio-change-imax

DMR when filmed in IMAX

If DMR is a process designed for films that were not shot in IMAX, why are films that are shot entirely with IMAX cameras included on this list? With that I mean films such as Avengers: Infinity War and Pandas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.111.152 (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

DMR was originally introduced to digitally enhance films that were not shot with 65mm IMAX cameras. Films shot with the digital IMAX cameras apparently still go through the DMR process.
Barry Wom (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Pruning of the list

According to the guidelines at WP:CSC, list articles should be under 32K in length.

Over the years this particular list has grown to a whopping 172K and under the current inclusion criteria will only continue to grow.

When DMR was introduced it was a unique process. 70mm IMAX prints are expensive. The "secret recipe" by which 35mm or digital footage was upconverted was notable.

These days, the difference between a digital IMAX conversion and a standard digital copy are negligible. Virtually every big mainstream release is converted for digital IMAX screens. There's 65 titles in 2017 and 68 in 2018.

Something has to give, so I'm pruning the list to include only notable IMAX DMR titles, namely those which were released on IMAX film and those which had an aspect ratio which was unique to IMAX cinemas.

Barry Wom (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The list is now incredibly inconsistent with regular titles like Elysium and Pacific Rim remaining and actual movies with an expanded aspect ratio like Guardians of the Galaxy, Alien Covenant, Beauty and the Beast and so on being deleted. You have even deleted a ton of movies filmed with IMAX cameras like Captain America: Civil War and Transformers: Age of Extinction. So basically, I have no idea what this list has become.
Sandrobost (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Now complete, although the list is still at an uncomfortable length at 59K. Perhaps it should be split into two separate lists?
Barry Wom (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I think we should add those deleted films back in with separated pages for them. I mean, there are tons of international releases that I think should be notified as well.
Can you explain what you mean by "separated pages"?
As I've mentioned, there's nothing really "noteable" about a standard digital IMAX DMR film these days, whether it's international or not. There's nothing that makes them particularly different from a non-IMAX digital release.
Barry Wom (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'm new here, but, I'm going to take on the first comment "According to the guidelines at WP:CSC, list articles should be under 32K in length." Tell me how many articles are actually 32K in length? If you go to any article about a TV show, and click on the episode list, for something that went through 7 seasons or more, that list is no where near 32K. There are many of these. Your basis for this is bunk. Benjiwiki8758 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we should have "List of feature-length films released in IMAX" page.

I mean, why delete all those IMAX releases even though they were clearly released in IMAX format one way or another?

Yes, a lot of films that were released in IMAX format got all deleted, leaving only few films.

Simple answer: there's too many of them. The guidelines for wiki lists at WP:CSC says "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers."
A list of every feature film released in IMAX would easily surpass 32K.
Barry Wom (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
How about separating those pages then? Like, based on domestic release, international release, unique aspect ratio, and so on?
How would that help? Virtually every DMR film has both a domestic and an international release. Although I agree the unique aspect ratio list included here could be farmed off to its own page.
Also, can you please restrict your comments to one section or the other?
Barry Wom (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
There are films that have received IMAX release elsewhere in the world, but not in the U.S., so I think we could consider separating the page based on that since way to many international IMAX releases got deleted.
If that still becomes too big, we could consider separating this page with 5-year basis, so, for instance, the list would include films from 2010 to 2014 and 2015 to 2019 separately.
I'm suggesting this because I think there might be people who don't know which film got released in IMAX format, and recently, there have been some 3D releases that only got IMAX 2D releases, so I think it's worth listing those as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:4701:C160:A0E8:E067:1326:53A8 (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
To repeat, there's nothing particularly noteable about digital IMAX DMR releases, whether they're only released outside the U.S. or not. Neither is it noteable that some DMR releases were in 2D or 3D - the same happened with the non-IMAX releases of those titles.
There's plenty of other "premium large format" screens around today to rival IMAX - Regal's RPX, for example. We don't have a list of every film which appeared on such screens. And rightly so. There's no reason to consider IMAX a special case.
Barry Wom (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I personally don't see why a movie being released in IMAX 70mm cinemas warrants a list, if we're going to talk about notability. In my opinion that's just as "notable" as noting whether a movie had an IMAX 3D release or was only released in IMAX 2D in the US. I say we restore the list we had before, or only make a list containing movies with an exclusive IMAX aspect ratio. Sandrobost (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not so much the fact that the films were released in 70mm cinemas that's noteable, it's the 70mm DMR process itself - which was groundbreaking. The use of computers to digitally enhance a standard 35mm negative to enable printing to the huge IMAX 70mm frame meant that the company could move beyond solely releasing films shot on 65mm film, which they were restricted to for over 30 years.
The difference between a standard 35mm print and an IMAX DMR 70mm print was quite significant. The difference between a digital DMR copy and standard 2K digital is minimal. A 4K digital copy is superior to a 2K IMAX copy.
Added to that is the sheer cost of the original 70mm DMR process which was obviously terms of magnitude over the digital process. A 70mm IMAX print cost around $25,000 (double that for 3D prints).
So yes, I'd argue that the 70mm process is significantly more noteable than whether a film ran in 3D in certain territories and suchlike.
Going back to the original list isn't an option I'm afraid, as I've explained. And I still haven't heard a decent argument as to why digital IMAX films deserve their own list over other premium large format screens.
Barry Wom (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello.
I think it's best to leave the old version of the list - it was convenient and interesting. Perhaps somehow highlight movies shot in IMAX. The old list was regularly updated and supplemented. With this version, this will no longer be - it will be abandoned. The current version, personally for me, is useless and inconvenient.
We already have a List of IMAX films and the first section of the new list simply duplicates information from another, without adding anything new to it. It is foolish to have two lists compiled according to one principle. Much easier and more convenient to transfer information about the films released on IMAX 70mm film in a separate section in the List of IMAX films.
But, if it is decided to abandon the original version, then I have several suggestions:
First, unify the List of IMAX films with the first section of this list, as I described above.
Second is to create a section of films created outside the US and China. Because for these countries these films are noteworthy and there are not many of them (for example, in 2017 there were only 3 from Russia, 2 from Japan and 1 from France and India. In the history in Imax only one German film was released and only two Korean films), as well as information on their release is difficult to find (for the new movies from US and China there are actual official sites).
And the third is to create a section for re-releases of films shot before 2002 (such as The Wizard of Oz, Forrest Gump or Jurassic Park). Such things are rare and noteworthy, in my opinion.
I apologize if the text is not clear - English is not my strong side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.61.65.161 (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Your English is fine!

Firstly, the List of IMAX films is a list of films at least partially shot with IMAX cameras. There will inevitably be some overlap with the first section of this list since some of these films have been released on 70mm film. Not all of them though - Avengers: Infinity War, for example. It's incorrect to say that this section "simply duplicates information from another, without adding anything new to it".

Secondly, I've explained why I think the IMAX DMR process is noteable when 70mm film is involved and why it isn't noteable for digital IMAX. There's a good reason why the digital process was dubbed "LieMAX" when introduced. It's a much cheaper and significantly inferior process. Several other premium large format screens now offer better image and sound.

If the digital DMR process isn't noteable, then neither are "films created outside the US and China" nor re-releases of old titles which happened to have been shown in an IMAX cinema.

Barry Wom (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It might be more notable than digital DMR films, but I personally simply do not see why there would be interest in a "List of 70mm IMAX DMR films". What exactly is the purpose of this list? Why would anyone ever need it? The previous list, while long, had a clear purpose: firstly, to look up if a movie was released in IMAX. Secondly, and more importantly, if it was: were there any elements to the IMAX presentation that were not present in regular theaters, and how was it released in IMAX? I don't think anyone that regularly looked up this list took issue with its length, and even then the Wikipedia criteria specifies that "Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria", where a list being short is only one criteria. It's not a "rule" that lists must have a length under 32K. There are other lists on Wikipedia that are much longer than this list previously was. Sandrobost (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
If we're agreed that the 70mm IMAX process is noteable and digital IMAX isn't, then I can't see why a list of films which underwent the 70mm process has no purpose. These screenings offer a significantly improved image over a normal cinema.
"were there any elements to the IMAX presentation that were not present in regular theaters" - yes, I agree that's of interest. I'll move Fantastic Beasts to its own section. Are there any other elements unique to IMAX other than aspect ratio and a single "frame break" title?
Barry Wom (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new here. I came to the list to find it all messed up, what the heck is going on? I joined after seeing this page here. I used to go to this list to find out what was playing in IMAX when and the notes were very handy to know if it was going to be shown in 3D (though, lately that is up in the air, could be shown in 3D & 2D showtimes, or just 2D), and also whether anything exclusive to the IMAX release.

The thing is, you can go to dolby's website and see a list of films with release dates and whether they will be in Dolby Vision or Dolby Atmos, (I use this more for reference when talking about disc releases). With IMAX, there is no concise list or calendar on their website, and that is what I used to come here for, just to see what was going to play in IMAX cinemas. If something does have something unique to the IMAX experience, I do look for that, especially if there are several films I want to see coming up close in time, but, can't see all of them in IMAX. I also use it for reference from time to time.

At the VERY LEAST you should have archived the page before changing it. (WTF?)

Now, I don't only go to IMAX for IMAX exclusives, I often go to IMAX, even if it's just a DMR, because it is bigger screen and better audio than regular cinema. I do not live near any Dolby Cinemas, however, I was out of town and went to a Cinemark XD once, and I can tell you, it was not the same as IMAX, not at all, yes it was a bigger screen, but, seems like they used the same projector they use for small screens, it was dim and the color was washed out, it was terrible, and the audio wasn't spectacular. I saw one film, that was DMR for IMAX, but, otherwise no IMAX exclusives, (Star Trek Beyond) in three formats: Cinemark XD, regular 2D cinema, IMAX 3D (2K x2 digital), IMAX was, by far, the best experience.

So, NO, other large screen cinema experiences are not the same as IMAX. IMAX uses two projectors and has other things about it that the others do not necessarily do. (And, yes the DMR process IMAX does to regular films to make them look better on their bigger screens is most definitely better than just projecting a standard DCP on the bigger screen.)

I want my list back. If it's too big, can you just break it down by year? Keep the list of years like it was at top, and those will be links to another page?

However, I don't understand why it's too big, if you go to TV listings, you can go to episode lists, and these can be quite large!! So, what is really going on here?

(FYI: In case someone here does not know it, even though many cinemas have 4K projectors, that does not mean they get 4K DCPs sent to them for all films, in fact, it is still only a few films, most are sent to cinemas in a 2K DCP.) Benjiwiki8758 (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to add, it makes it difficult to look up films with the separate lists. Please find a way to make one list. It was very handy the way it was with one concise list by release date with the notes showing 3D/2D, and extra information about individual films. If I can help in any way, let me know. Thank You. Benjiwiki8758 (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI: One more thing, there is already a list of IMAX 70mm films: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_films Benjiwiki8758 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you want me to fix this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:4701:C160:A0E8:E067:1326:53A8 (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
You mentioned both Dolby Cinema and 4K DCPs. Both of these offer a superior product to 2K digital IMAX. Yet Wikipedia doesn't have a list of every Dolby Cinema release nor a list of every 4K release. Because Wikipedia is not a directory. The information you're looking for on IMAX releases can be easily found at a site such as Fandango.
"other large screen cinema experiences are not the same as IMAX". In many cases, they are objectively better. The dual projector system isn't unique to IMAX - Regal's RPX cinemas have them. And the 6.1 IMAX sound system is bettered by the 7.1, Auro 11.1 and Dolby Atmos systems in many premium screens.
The list of IMAX films is a list of films shot with IMAX cameras. The vast majority of these titles didn't undergo DMR processing. The first section of this list gives the DMR films that were released in 70mm. The vast majority of these titles didn't use IMAX cameras.
If you want to see the list as it was before being pruned, click on "View history" at the top of the page then choose an earlier date.
Barry Wom (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The first thing I think is that such a discussion should have taken place before the changes and not after. The list was formed for many years and it was created by many people. And it's wrong to change everything completely because of one opinion. Wikipedia is a collective work, not an individual one.
This list has always been formed on the principle of going through the DMR procedure or not (with some exceptions). Yes, the procedure is now different from what it was at the time of the film, but it still surpasses its competitors. In addition, other premium large screen is not as common as imax. For example, in my country there is no alternative, so I can not compare IMAX and, for example, Regal's RPX or China Film Giant Screen, so I focus solely on the feedback of other people and, in most, they testify in favor of Imax.
I do not support explicit allocation of film format. Digital technologies are developing, the resolution of the cameras is getting higher. Imax has new laser projectors and a new sound system. So what if after a number of years the digital IMAX DMR releases become indistinguishable from film releases, will we re-do the list, adding a bunch of sub-paragraphs and making it unreadable?
"Firstly, the List of IMAX films is a list of films at least partially shot with IMAX cameras. There will inevitably be some overlap with the first section of this list since some of these films have been released on 70mm film."
I do not agree. Look at the main article about IMAX - where is the link to the List of IMAX films and where on the List of IMAX DMR films? So I still think that if you transfer films released on 70mm film and "notable" movies into special sections of the List of IMAX films, it will not change anything and completely eliminate the need for two lists.
So I continue to think that either you need to transfer some of the information to the List of IMAX films and completely remove the List of IMAX DMR films. Or leave the only criterion for the List of IMAX DMR films to pass DMR technology.
Once again, I highlight that such global changes should be discussed BEFORE making changes, and not AFTER them.
"in my country there is no alternative, so I can not compare IMAX and, for example, Regal's RPX or China Film Giant Screen". You're in Russia, right? What about the RealD LUXE screens, with dual projectors and Auro 11.1 sound? In any case, you don't have to visit an IMAX rival to appreciate the difference in technical specifications.
"So what if after a number of years the digital IMAX DMR releases become indistinguishable from film releases, will we re-do the list, adding a bunch of sub-paragraphs and making it unreadable?" No, because other manufacturers will be creating similar or better projection systems. When IMAX was using solely 70mm film, they pretty much had a monopoly on large format installations.
"the main article about IMAX - where is the link to the List of IMAX films and where on the List of IMAX DMR films". At the bottom of the page.
Barry Wom (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
(Note to other editors - the above unsigned comment was made by someone whose sole contribution to wiki has been to update this list) Barry Wom (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"The information you're looking for on IMAX releases can be easily found at a site such as Fandango." NO, it cannot. I have tried Fandango, and every other site I can think of. Again, IMAX does not have a calendar nor a list.

"You mentioned both Dolby Cinema and 4K DCPs. Both of these offer a superior product to 2K digital IMAX." The IMAX experience is more than resolution! What you said is highly subjective! IMAX 2K is actually using 2 projectors at 2K each, one for each eye for 3D, or slightly offset for 2D, making it more than 2K, and brighter than regular cinema. There are many more IMAX cinemas than Dolby Cinemas. And, again, (why do I have to repeat myself?), just because cinemas can do 4K, does not mean that they are getting 4K DCPs from the studios, most films are 2K, probably because it's cheaper and faster and because the VFX are only 2K anyway.

I already told you about my experience with a Cinemark XD, and you did not listen. It was dim, the color was washed out, it looked worse than regular cinema, so, no they are not all the same.

IMAX is now doing 4K dual laser projector with 12 channel audio, similar to Atmos with 4 channels in the ceiling. They are also offering, as an option, single 4K laser projector upgrades for the 2K digital IMAX's.

"The vast majority of these titles didn't undergo DMR processing." Well then, bring back the list of DMR titles! Regardless of what you think, I will repeat myself, the IMAX DMR process makes films look better on IMAX projection systems than just playing a DCP as it is sent to regular cinemas.

Just because you have a strong opinion, or live next to a Dolby Cinema or whatever it is, doesn't mean you can come in here and change the list to what you want. Make a new list if you don't like it.

Reality is this: IMAX used to be only in museums and aquariums playing only IMAX made films, and those were short films, mostly documentary style. When they expanded to include feature length films, they also invented their DMR system. Reality is, most films are not going to be shot with IMAX cameras, so they are not going to look as nice as those that are. So, many of us enjoy going to IMAX for certain types of films, regardless of whether or not they were shot with IMAX cameras, because we like the IMAX experience. And, it is because of this that you will be able to go to your local IMAX and see anything. IMAX also started the idea of larger screen and bigger sound, but, it is also in the design of the auditorium, which, I have to say is what XD was lacking greatly.

"So what if after a number of years the digital IMAX DMR releases become indistinguishable from film releases" I disagree with this statement. The IMAX DMR process takes a standard DCP and improves it for large screen projection, not only that, but, IMAX uses 2 projectors, so this is a consideration in their process. This is part of what makes it look better on the bigger screen. It is better than regular cinema, no, maybe it's not better than Dolby Cinema, (I don't live near one, but, I do live 40 miles and 70 miles from IMAX's), but, that is not the point here, that is not what this page is about.

So, no, this should not have been completely altered the way it was without talk. Benjiwiki8758 (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"There's a good reason why the digital process was dubbed "LieMAX" when introduced. It's a much cheaper and significantly inferior process. Several other premium large format screens now offer better image and sound." Now I understand where you are coming from. There seems to be some kind of religious cult about IMAX that's based on something that does not even make sense. Basically what you "LieMAX" people are really saying is that it isn't IMAX if it wasn't filmed with IMAX cameras. (And it's not a real IMAX if it's not 1.43:1 AR.) Well, then, let's go back to IMAX only being in museums and aquariums then, shall we? When IMAX added feature films they expanded to cinemas and gave us a bigger and better experience than regular cinema with the same films you see in the regular cinema. The DMR process is to clean up and improve the image for the larger screen. Other premium formats may have their own process. But, this article is about IMAX, not other formats. Please put it back the way it was. Again, there is already a list of IMAX 70mm films, includes films made with IMAX digital cameras. Please go up a few paragraphs to where I wrote "Reality is this:..."

You do know that some films in the regular cinema are typically 1.85 or 2.35 AR? Cinemas might have their biggest screens in a 2.35 AR, so when you see a 1.85 AR film, the sides are matted, so it doesn't fill the screen. Some screens are 1.85 AR and matted top and bottom for 2.35 AR films, essentially letterboxed. Are you now going to ask for your money back because it didn't fill the screen?

What I have to say is this: Cinematography is an art and, like all art, it comes in various forms, not everyone enjoys the same art, and not everyone enjoys art in the same way. This article gave a concise list of films converted to IMAX shown in IMAX cinemas with notes telling us a bit about any special cameras used, how it will be shown, (opened up or not), and what exclusives it might have. It was great.

—For many people, we go to IMAX for the immersive experience, the bigger screen and bigger sound, close to the screen...everything that the IMAX experience offers, regardless of the AR, or if it was filmed with IMAX cameras or opened up or not. There are far more IMAX's than other premium large format screens available. Again, I saw a film that was not filmed with IMAX cameras in 3 cinema formats: Cinemark XD, regular cinema (2D), and IMAX 3D, and the IMAX 3D was the best, most immersive experience of them all by a long shot. Benjiwiki8758 (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"When IMAX added feature films they expanded to cinemas and gave us a bigger and better experience than regular cinema". Nobody is arguing that IMAX doesn't offer a superior experience to a regular 2K cinema. But...
"most films are not going to be shot with IMAX cameras, so they are not going to look as nice as those that are" "maybe it's not better than Dolby Cinema". This is the point I'm making: IMAX used to offer a unique product. Clearly that is no longer the case.
"it is because of this that you will be able to go to your local IMAX and see anything" "the same films you see in the regular cinema". Exactly. This list had effectively become a list of every big mainstream release. Information on any features of a DMR release which are exclusive to IMAX has been retained.
As for "LieMAX", it refers to the digital cinema technology, not whether IMAX cameras were used. To repeat: IMAX 70mm DMR offers a significantly improved experience over digital IMAX.
"Are you now going to ask for your money back because it didn't fill the screen?" Are you going to ask for your money back when a 'scope feature doesn't fill the IMAX screen?
Barry Wom (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
"You're in Russia, right?"
Bingo!
"What about the RealD LUXE screens, with dual projectors and Auro 11.1 sound?"
We have one and I did not notice a huge difference in the picture with the usual large screen, and in sound with Atmos. Maybe I chose the wrong movie for comparison, but I did not find anything that made me choose LUXE, not IMAX.
But the most important thing is that for LUXE not made a special copy of the movie, so IMAX is "more noteable".
"you don't have to visit an IMAX rival to appreciate the difference in technical specifications"
No, I think that only the technical specifications do not allow real comparison.
I will give an example. UHD disks with similar technical specifications can have a huge difference in quality. It depends on many factors - the cameras for which the film was shot, the resolution, the quality of the UHD-version and the technique on which you watch the film. It is not right to compare only the characteristics of TVs.
It's the same with IMAX and other premium large screens. It is not right to compare only the specifications of the projectors (besides, I think you miss out on Laser). And the quality of copies of IMAX and other cinemas is significantly different.
So no, only technical specifications are not enough to draw conclusions. It is necessary to take movie and compare it in different formats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.61.65.161 (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ghostbusters Frame Break

...wasn't exclusive to IMAX, despite the claims made in the supplied link, which was probably the marketing department getting confused over the exclusive aspect ratio in IMAX with Laser.

The effect was in all 3D cinemas and is even on home video versions.

Here's the instruction sheet sent by Sony to cinema projectionists: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1889/43477389024_e5e638a5cd_b.jpg

Barry Wom (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Questions about 'Riddick', 'Seventh Son', and 'Ready Player One'

1. I thought 'Riddick' IMAX release had 1.90:1 aspect ratio for its entire runtime. Where did you find the source for 1.90:1 aspect ratio for selected scenes? And how long were they in total?

2. I'm aware that 'Seventh Son' had IMAX aspect ratio for the opening sequence. How long was it?

3. Were OASIS scenes in 'Ready Player One' really rendered/shot natively in 3D? I can't find any information about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:4701:C160:A0E8:E067:1326:53A8 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

1. In the supplied link, the director says "David Eggby and I shot the movie widescreen (2.40:1), yet the native aspect ratio of IMAX is much taller (1.90:1) [...] My solution was to adopt different aspect ratios within the same movie".
3. Don't know. The film is no longer in the list though.
Barry Wom (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for comments on the removal of digital DMR titles

Should this list contain every film which underwent DMR processing? Barry Wom (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

See the discussion under "Pruning of the list" and "I think we should have "List of feature-length films released in IMAX" page" above. Barry Wom (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this list should contain every film which underwent IMAX's DMR processing. That is what this list is, that is why it is called "List of IMAX DMR films". Benjiwiki8758 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think so as well. This new list lacks a clear purpose which it did have before the big change. But I do like the idea mentioned above to change the list to something like "List of films released in IMAX" because I think films like Blade Runner 2049 and Skyfall belong here as well. Sandrobost (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that it is necessary to leave the old version of the list, which includes all the films that passed the DMR process. Perhaps it is worth discussing some minor changes (for example, to highlight movies shot with the help of IMAX cameras), but not completely rework the list. As the discussion showed, at the moment the issue of technical characteristics of the premium large screen is still too controversial and doesn't lead to a single opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.61.65.161 (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Old version of the list was useful, new one is not. When list is useless, what's the point of its existence? I like the option of rename list into "List of Films released in IMAX" with adding doc films like this year's Pandas and re-adding Blade Runner 2049 and Skyfall. If there is a problem about size - divide it by years of release. Impulce (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

agreeing with everyone else who has provided detailed explanations and reasoning for why this page should have been thoroughly discussed before the vast majority of it was made useless. i came here routinely for updates on whether a film would have an expanded aspect ratio, be in 3d in the states, etc. and now that's all gone. as others have repeatedly stated, there is no consolidated source for that information, like what had been created here. what's left is a list that could be relatively easily integrated into the general "list of imax films" with notations where they underwent the 70mm dmr process.

as it stands, the title of that page is a bit ambiguous as well, as i would expect it to be a list of every film released in imax, not just ones that were shot only with imax cameras. the opinion of one editor, however strong, should still yield to the general consensus. perhaps taking the suggestions of others would be more productive, and ultimately result in two clearer lists: one large list for every imax release (as this page used to be closest to), and another for those filmed with imax cameras and/or underwent 70mm dmr processing. as a final note, i do appreciate the modern tables. collapsible and sorting would be nice refinement, as well. Impasse 21:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impasse (talk • contribs)

I agree with everything said above. I don't really see the point of this new list? The expanded aspect ratio list is useful, but the other one... Why would that list be needed instead of the previous one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.111.152 (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I was SHOCKED to find this list had been changed so substantially and the discussion/reasons why could not be located. I agree with all said above, and this new list is of much less value to most people than a list of all movies released and upcoming in Imax. I believe a better solution would have been either two seperate lists or to keep the list as all movies released in Imax, but add a flag/column to highlight those with were DMR. The previous list should be restored until this matter has been discussed and a consensus reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.67.200 (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I used to look at this list all the time. I don't think length is an issue for anyone. Please restore it to the previous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2203:EC80:1966:E0A9:BC90:9BF (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The former list should be reinstated while necessary changes are decided. There have been many good ideas put forward about reorganising the list in useful ways, but nothing close to agreement with what was done. That the list was so heavily redacted without first building any consensus whatsoever was disrespectful to those that contributed over time and is borderline disruptive editing. From the remnants of discussion that remains it appears the edits were ideologically motivated (in reaction to perceived IMAX cultism and “liemax”) and can be seen as vandalistic in the way they were enacted.

I agree there should be separated lists for 70mm films, documentaries etc., but also strongly support the maintenance of the master list as it previously existed. It was a handy resource that tried to catalogue all films released in a unique format. It should also still include films that were exhibited in IMAX but were not put through the DMR process, for reference purposes. 106.69.173.31 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It really should. Not only the list has pretty much been obliterated, but it also removed 'Transformers: The Last Knight' from the list even though 98% of that film was shot in IMAX format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.27.225 (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious from the above comments (with the frequent references to the "usefulness" of listing every DMR release) that the main interest is in having a directory of upcoming IMAX releases because as one editor put it, there is "no consolidated source for that information". Wikipedia isn't the place for such a list. If you want to find out what's coming to your local IMAX, check a cinema listings page. The historical data is of little interest and some of it is unquestionably trivial - the fact that Noah was released in IMAX 2D in North America and Japan, to pick a random example.
What I haven't heard yet is any argument as to why the current IMAX product should have special consideration. Why is there no "List of D-Box films", for instance? The answer is: there was one, but it was deleted. Which is what would probably happen to this list if every single DMR release was reinstated. Barry Wom (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Barry Wom... You obviously has a strong opinion about this, but so far we have not heard from anyone else with the same view. I would encourage anyone who agrees with you to speak up. However, there have been a number of people who have explained that the IMAX experience (regardless of the 70mm DMR process or not) is different enough for them to justify the list as it was. They also provided a reasonable compromise of two lists (I.e.the previous list and the list of 70mm imax DMR movies), or to highlight such movies in one list. These people, like myself, obviously found value in the "unquestionable trivia" contained in the previous list. I found such a list informative, not for upcoming movies as you said, but by highlighting the different techniques used to release movies in imax theatres around the world. It is unclear to me why you are not willing to accept the compromises proposed, other than you don't see the value of the previous list... a list that others do see value in. Btw, I am sure once there is enough interest, a list of d-box films will be made as well... similar to the current Wikipedia list of 4dx films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.67.200 (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

"However, there have been a number of people who have explained that the IMAX experience [...] is different enough for them to justify the list as it was."
Plenty of suggestions that digital IMAX is "different" from a bog-standard digital cinema. No arguments (because there aren't any) that it's "different" enough from other premium large screen formats. Resolution, color space and contrast are all equalled or bettered by competing formats. Barry Wom (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I move we include all rereleases of older films for IMAX that hadn't been released in IMAX before, regardless of presentation format or special aspect ratios. --Ryanasaurus0077 (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Barry Wom, with regard to your comment about 'special consideration', the vast majority of films exhibited in IMAX still go through their propriety DMR process. This makes the presentation distinct from other large screen formats and is of importance to a variety of people, from informed consumers of IMAX product to cinephiles. What is trivial to you is of historical record to others, such as those who have an interest in specific details of a movie’s theatrical run. It goes beyond just wanting to find out what is playing at the local IMAX. By this logic pages like episode lists for TV shows should go from Wikipedia as well, as you can find such information in the TV guide.

It is clear from your comments that you personally see no value in a list of all films shown in IMAX, and that these views led you to significant editing of the page without first consulting the community. Comment has been sought retrospectively and the view of commentators is that while changes should be made, the page should be restored as it was previously. 106.69.59.246 (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"the vast majority of films exhibited in IMAX still go through their propriety DMR process."
The current DMR process is a completely different beast to the original, which involved high definition scanning, grain removal and digital enhancements. The IMAX corporation continued to use the same term for digitally captured films because the term had a certain cachet with the consumer. This is also why they didn't distinguish between their film and digital products.
Besides, I'm unconvinced that there is anything significant involved in the DMR process any longer. If a film such as The Revenant is captured at up to 6K and goes through a 4K intermediate, exactly what does DMR do to such an image for projection at 2K in digital IMAX? I suspect the answer is "very little", but they slap the DMR tag onto the marketing in an attempt to convince the public they're paying an upcharge for something unique
"This makes the presentation distinct from other large screen formats". Distinct in what way? You can process a 2K image as much as you like but it isn't going to make it as good as 4K and certainly not as good as 4K HDR. In a traditional IMAX theater converted to digital, the pixel grid is clearly visible from anywhere near the screen. Barry Wom (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to restore the page to what it was before. People are taking matters into their own hands and it's a complete mess right now. After the page has been restored we can discuss the changes that should be made. Sandrobost (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

We need to wait for longer. The current problem is that of all the contributions to this discussion, only three are from editors (yourself included) who are not Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts. The next step would be to take the discussion to arbitration. As I've pointed out already, there's a significant chance that if every DMR title is re-added to the list the whole page might get deleted. Barry Wom (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

So Barry Wom do you want to wait longer or take the discussion to arbitration? Which one? How much longer should we wait? Comment was sought on 24 August and not one person has come forward who agrees with you. Even if you discount all the single-purpose accounts you are still outnumbered and yet refuse any sort of compromise. You are clearly in the realm of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing now (see the section on failure to get the point, in particular). Further, you absolutely decimated a page without any input from others, based solely on your own dislike of IMAX methods and marketing. You say the page is too big and will get deleted anyway but have not responded to any of the suggestions to reformat it while keeping the previous content. The page needs to be restored while the discussion continues or escalated as soon as possible. 106.69.59.246 (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough; you're welcome to take the issue to arbitration immediately. Barry Wom (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree this will not get resolved without going to arbitration, and there is no point in waiting as there has to be flexibility in order to reach a compromise. I am willing to take the risk the whole page might get deleted, especially given its current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.205.99.187 (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear Barry Wom. I'm just starting to wonder: why do you want to see this page deleted so badly? Clearly you are outnumbered and the only one with this point of view. People outside of Wikipedia are even starting to talk about what is happening here. This page was in perfect state before you changed it and had a very loyal group of editors who constantly kept it up to date. It's clear that the Single-Purpose Accounts commenting here are passive readers who liked to come to this page without editing it and are now confused what is happening. If you don't think this list is useful, why not just let the many people who do continue using it? Sorry for the heated comment, I'm just getting a little frustrated here. There's no reason to have let it escalate to this point. Sandrobost (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Will all due respect, the latest version of this page is a mess. There's five separate lists providing the same information as was previously covered in one. I do appreciate the new focus on 70mm IMAX releases, but much of this information is incorrect. Almost all DMR films prior to 2013 were released in 70mm IMAX, but this list is missing several entries, among them Thor and Avengers 1. Skyfall has also been left off the list entirely for not undergoing true DMR processing, despite receiving an IMAX release with two major hallmarks of the IMAX experience: 70mm film projection and an expanded aspect ratio. The previous version of this page was much clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8201:8DC9:6C8F:7E4E:70EF:E747 (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Reading through everything, I agree with Sandrobost and share his frustration and confusion as to why it has escalated to this point. Reasonable compromises have been presented and yet not accepted. Apart from one person, it doesn't appear anyone is happy with the list as it has been edited. (And I think discounting the views of passive readers is unfair). Given the discussion just seems to be repeating itself, it looks like the way forward should be dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harris Seldon (talk • contribs) 11:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add that IMAX is the only premium large format with exclusive extra's like special countdowns, exclusive sneak-peeks/prologues/previews for other movies, 3D-remasters (like the one for Michael Jackson's Thriller coming out this month), different aspect ratios, shorter/longer runtimes and earlier release dates (Everest, The Walk, M:I-4), with special camera's and even films that are made for the format. This, to me, makes the format significantly more notable and a significantly different experience than other premium formats like Dolby Cinema or Cinemark, even if they have superior color space/resolution etc. The most effective way to showcase this information is one list of the films released in the IMAX format with notes saying what makes each release unique, which is exactly what we had before. Sandrobost (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention that according to the wiki page it is "the most widely used system for special-venue film presentations", and it is the only premium format of which separate box office numbers are often reported on wikipedia pages because of the format's significance and popularity. (Examples: Mission: Impossible – Rogue_Nation#Box office, The Dark Knight Rises#Box office, List of box office records set by Avatar). In my opinion, plenty of arguments for "why the current IMAX product should have special consideration". Sandrobost (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
"The most effective way to showcase this information is one list of the films released in the IMAX format with notes saying what makes each release unique" - exactly and fully supported. What was there before was a much more informative listing that helped to educate readers on the different types of formats used by IMAX, instead of deciding for them. Harris Seldon (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, if I recall, doesn't IMAX also use a different type of 3D technology than other theatres as well, which is another way the experience is different. Harris Seldon (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Correct, IMAX Digital is the only projection system that uses linear polarization, and although IMAX Laser uses the same technique as Dolby, it's still rare and high-end. This is also a reason to note whether a film is released in IMAX 2D or 3D. Sandrobost (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I have raised this matter for dispute resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:List_of_IMAX_DMR_films#Request_for_comments_on_the_removal_of_digital_DMR_titles

Please Note: I only included users most recently involved in the conversation. Apologies if I accidentally overlooked you. Harris Seldon (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


Barry Wom has not contributed to this discussion in a week now, and he is the only person out of the seventeen separate users that have commented here who is opposed to reverting the list to what it was before he made the changes. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to say a consensus has been reached.

I reverted the page back to the most recent revision of the page before it was pruned. Of course, some updates have been made to several movies in the new list between then and now, and I've tried my best to add those changes to the list. If you see anything that I forgot, don't hesitate to fix it. Sandrobost (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

'Incredibles 2' and 'The Meg'

I was under the impression that these 2 films only played in IMAX 2D in the U.S. Are there any information that says otherwise?

Because whenever I tried to edit those information, they switch back to what it was originally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.27.225 (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

While the IMAX trailer for Incredibles 2 was showing in IMAX 3D, the film was only released in IMAX 2D in North America, to my knowledge. (I am unsure about The Meg.) Benjiwiki8758 (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to move list from List of IMAX DMR films to List of films released in IMAX

This is what the list has turned into anyway, and renaming it would mean some titles that should really be on this list can be re-added, like Blade Runner 2049 and Skyfall. Sandrobost (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Agreed - a list of all films released in IMAX would be informative and useful, as it will demonstrate the different formats used by IMAX for each release (such as those shown in the note at the beginning of the list). Such a title change will also more accurately reflect what the list has become, and what people seem interested in. Harris Seldon (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC).

Endgame countdown

Just want to avoid an edit war. This is the countdown that played before Endgame, which is over two years old and has been used for numerous other films. Thus, it is not a "special" countdown, unless others saw a different countdown than I did with something specific to Endgame. Soronast (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Just want to avoid an edit war, and here is the proof of the Cameras countdown. This is the 'Cameras' countdown that played before Endgame, same what Avengers: Infinity War did. Thank you. User:Terahbytes (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Was 'Spider-Man: Far from Home' converted to 3D or shot in 3D?

When someone was editing 'Spider-Man: Far from Home' section after it was confirmed that it will have IMAX aspect ratios for some scenes, he/she also deleted "(converted)" in the process? Shall I put "(converted)" back to where it was, or should I just leave it deleted?

Godzilla: King of the Monsters IMAX countdown

Just wanted to ask, is this the IMAX countdown used on Godzilla: King of the Monsters, which is this countdown used on the previous 2014 Godzilla movie? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQI50KnHLvY User:Terahbytes (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Onward IMAX 3D release

Just to clarify things, that I saw Onward advanced tickets, that it will be shown only in 2D format. Here in the Philippines, it was expected to be 3D, as the preview trailer was being played in IMAX 3D, but the film will be shown in IMAX 2D format (all IMAX cinemas in the Philippines, IMAX in SM Supermalls and IMAX with Laser in Evia Lifestyle Center). Can you give me an evidence of other IMAX screens that it will show in 3D? Just asking. Thanks!

Do you think we should delete the entire section of IMAX releases after 'I Still Believe'?

Right now, we have 2 major IMAX releases that got delayed with no release dates and we have no idea what's going to get delayed next. Maybe we should delete the whole section that are "written" after I Still Believe add one film at a time when a film gets successfully released in IMAX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.66.146 (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I see no real reason to do that, let's just keep the list updated with the info we have. FlippyElectricitySocket (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, if one more IMAX release gets delayed significantly, I might seriously consider doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.66.146 (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Don't. When a movie gets delayed, we'll update it in the list. There's no point in assuming every movie from now on will get delayed/its IMAX release canceled. The best we can do is keep the list as updated as we can with the sources currently available to us. FlippyElectricitySocket (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

some removal

I've removed some entries of IMAX movies because movies have been delayed. So far, its after akira until and including Black Widow. Starzoner (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Did Akira get postponed? If so, can you provide me a source for this? As far as I'm aware, this was getting an IMAX re-release in Japan only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.66.146 (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

MCU films from 2020 on removed

I took this step after learning of the chain reaction that might result from the delay of the Black Widow film. From what I've read, the future of the MCU is in greater doubt than when James Gunn was suspended for sexual misconduct back in 2018. --2600:6C5D:5B00:2B99:58C9:9F08:4FDE:3A58 (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I really think we should delete ALL films after 'I Still Believe'.

I mean, I don't think there's any point of keeping those films since we have no idea when cinemas will reopen. I know that a lot of you don't like this, but this is a time when we have to make difficult choices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.28.107 (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

First "x" release from "x" studio/distributor

There seems to be a rash of these rather anal entries on this page. Does anyone think that it's something worth noting on a wiki list ? To be honest I'm tempted to strip them all out to clean it up a bit. Barry Wom (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

... and it's now reached fairly ridiculous levels, with not only "First release from Warner Bros" considered noteworthy, but also "First release from Warner Bros. Pictures/New Line Cinema", and so on. This info must surely be of minority interest. If there are no objections, I'll strip them all out in a few days' time. Barry Wom (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
All now removed. Barry Wom (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Six years on and there's been a further rash added, which I'm removing. If you feel that it's important information for a list, please discuss here. Barry Wom (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Barry Wom, and they are back again. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah well. I tried. Barry Wom (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
...and it's time to try again. All removed. If anyone believes this is notable information and should be retained, please leave a comment. Barry Wom (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there really a point of keeping the list that goes beyond 'Akira' right now?

Right now, there are reports that AMC might disappear and given that this is the largest cinema chain in the U.S. (at the very least), some people seem to believe that cinemas will be dead completely and VOD streaming services will take over, especially considering that AMC seems to own just under half of all cinemas in the U.S. (these are those people's words, not mine)...

With that in mind, does it really make sense to keep the list that goes beyond Akira for the time being? I mean, I suggested that we should delete all films that are supposed to get released in IMAX after Akira and add one film at a time whenever a film gets successfully released in IMAX, but no one seems to agree with this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.28.107 (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If AMC closes or IMAX goes bankrupt or all movies go to streaming, then yes, we'll update the list to reflect that. However, all the things you just said are pure speculation. It'll all sort itself out if we give it time. FlippyElectricitySocket (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The person or persons who were determined to wipe out the 2021 list was allowed to have their fun, but now it really is time to bring back the 2021 list. At this rate will we have to wait until late Dec. for it to happen (if even by then?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.221.131.248 (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
[Looks at calendar. Facepalms.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.221.18.250 (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I my have jumped the gun with the facepalming since the 2021 films were listed shortly thereafter and it is being updated. What concerns me now is that someone might think it a good idea to remove a listing altogether rather than adjust the date if and when it changes, just like what happened before. Release dates change and it didn't just start with the pandemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.221.18.250 (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Although the US is a large movie exhibition market, it's not the only market in the world. Furthermore, the Giant IMAX screens that are inside/attached to museums will continue to be operated, even if commercial exhibitors all go bankrupt. Finally, even if movie theaters go bankrupt, the physical infrastructure still exists; as such, a new business can lease/buy the venues and show movies again.136.49.157.251 (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Disney Family Features in IMAX 3D Theatres

Here are these old regular Disney live-action films in the 2000s were never released in IMAX 3D:

  • The Princess Diaries was never released in IMAX 3D in August 2001.
  • Angels in the Outfield was never re-released in IMAX 3D in July 2002.
  • Freaky Friday was never released in IMAX 3D in August 2003.
  • Ice Princess was never released in IMAX 3D in March 2005.
  • Herbie: Fully Loaded was never released in IMAX 3D in June 2005.
  • Sky High was never released in IMAX 3D in July 2005.
  • The Parent Trap was never re-released in IMAX 3D in July 2006.
  • Enchanted was never released in IMAX 3D in November 2007.

Note: All these old regular Disney live-action films in the 2000s (except for The Princess and the Frog), these were never released in IMAX 3D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.18.244 (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

What are you trying to tell us? This is a list of movies that were released in IMAX, not a list of movies that weren't.136.49.157.251 (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Somebody has completely distorted the entire 2D/3D information.

As you know, these films didn't receive IMAX 3D releases in the U.S. despite getting regular 3D releases:

-The LEGO Batman Movie

-Blade Runner 2049

-Justice League

-A Wrinkle in Time

-Tomb Raider

-Rampage

-Incredibles 2

-Mission: Impossible – Fallout

-Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

-Ralph Breaks the Internet

-The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part

-How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World

-Captain Marvel

-Godzilla: King of the Monsters

-X-Men: Dark Phoenix

-Toy Story 4

-Maleficent: Mistress of Evil

-Frozen 2

-Jumanji: The Next Level

-Onward

-The Croods: A New Age

-Wonder Woman 1984

...and it looks like someone has swapped those information around, so now the whole thing says that these films have received IMAX 3D release in the U.S. even though they didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.29.12 (talk)

Could you please restore my edit, and then we can go through the distorted information in that version? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I have restored my edits. If there is any information distorted please let us know and we can look into it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think we should restore your edit since those upcoming films could get delayed again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.29.12 (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
If you want to know what is wrong with the version that you're keep restoring, just take a look at this "comparison" page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_films_released_in_IMAX&type=revision&diff=1004052748&oldid=1004052362 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.29.12 (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
If the upcoming films get delayed again then we change, we don't guess ourselves what will happen but follow the sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
In any case, I really don't think we should restore your edit since it's filled with false information regarding IMAX 2D/3D release in several different countries, like how it says that 'Men in Black International' got an IMAX release in the U.S. even though it did not. Just go through this comparison page before you revert back your edit all over again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_films_released_in_IMAX&type=revision&diff=1004503030&oldid=1004502782 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.29.12 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
If there is one that is wrong then just correct it instead of undoing all the other edits. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not just one information that is incorrect. Information on every films that I've listed are now falsified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.29.12 (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I've added back those films. You can now add citations accordingly and please don't revert back to previous version! (If you're wondering why I didn't add citations, it's because I don't know how to add citations here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.29.12 (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
If I could weigh in… I'm not certain what the issues with those films listings is, but I'm sure it will all get worked out, though Men in Black: International did get a US IMAX release. I saw it and I'm looking at my 6/15/2019 reservation email now. (I've even still got the paper ticket stub somewhere.) The continued suggestion that listings for any delayed releases should be removed is concerning and makes me wonder if the disastrous and damaging edits that removed so much content last year and even wiped out the 2021 list until a few days into Jan. could repeat. I don't really have the time and am frankly too lazy to do any maintenance on an article like this (and kudos to those who do!), but if we start seeing more disruptive edits bordering on vandalism like before, then the task may become more difficult. And if that happens again, I'm worried that this may stretch on for the rest of the year and possibly prevent the 2022 list from appearing until… 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.221.14.232 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The new list now says that the film got an IMAX 3D release in the U.S., even though it did not. Not only that, the version now states that many of those films got IMAX 3D release in the U.S. and IMAX 2D release only in countries like China, even though what happened was complete opposite - and no one even tried to fix that. In fact, none of the films that I've listed ever got IMAX 3D release in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.29.12 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
If you don't how to add citations then ask instead of reverting back to a previous version. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Emir of Wikipedia, I offered somewhat of a compromise in which I will add back those films manually so citations can be added later on, and you're not even going to accept that? (P.S. Also, are you using Canadian English? If so, why? I don't think IMAX being a Canadian company is a good enough reason to use Canadian English for this page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.29.12 (talk)
If you want to know how to add citations then please feel free to ask, but if you make disruptive edits it will be hard for people to assume good faith. Please see MOS:TIES about the variant of English. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Then at least try to fix those false information that I've told you about. You're not even trying to do that at all, not to mention that you've reverted back 'Tenet' information regarding the number of 70mm IMAX cinemas that it played in even though someone has actually explained what happened. With all due respect, I'm not sure if YOU are someone who is in a position to claim disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.29.12 (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Tell me the "false" information and I will help you fix it. If you look at my version it did say that Tenet played in eight 70mm IMAX, look at what edits I am making instead of blindly reverting. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Fine... I'll do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.29.12 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for making your edits in a constructive manner now, instead of reverting good edits. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
If you need help learning how to add citations I am happy to help. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_films_released_in_IMAX/Archive_1&oldid=1123146974"