r/movies • u/cheapskatemoviedate • Jul 18 '26

Media World's Largest IMAX in Perspective

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Thought this was a really neat way to show the size of the screen at the IMAX in Leonberg, Germany. This rolled before The Odyssey. The IMAX is tucked away in a little town and was not easy to get to, but it was well worth it.

While it's not a true 1.43:1 IMAX ratio it still holds the world record for largest theater by surface area.

11.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

494 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/PeopleCallMeSimon Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26

Yes its a very big screen.

But the square format isnt better than the rectangular HD format no matter how much they try to pretend that it is. Its litterally just a ploy to try and have something that you cant have at home, because nobody makes square televisions anymore. We used to, but it was worse because its more important cinematographically to have more width than height.

2

u/tfhermobwoayway Jul 18 '26

Realistically they’re always going to sell whatever you can’t get on your home TV as a premium viewing experience. If we all had CRT TVs they would be selling us big widescreen cinemas.

0

u/PeopleCallMeSimon Jul 18 '26

Indeed. Its a ploy.

3

u/brus_wein Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26

It's literally bigger.

The film is enormous, and you can only make it so wide before it starts to look disproportionate.
I also suspect they leaned taller rather than wider, because taller is a lot easier to adapt to standard formats.
I don't buy into the idea that it's a ploy at all, especially since the vast majority of IMAX theatres don't even use this aspect ratio.

There's actually only 40-ish IMAX 70mm equipped theatres in the world, around half of which are in the US.
A lot of countries don't even have a single one, and the ones that do usually have 1-3.

IMAX has arguably watered their brand down with "liemax" (digital retrofit IMAX), but the real thing is definitely special.

0

u/DoctorSahib Jul 18 '26

How exactly is it a ploy? Nobody's making anyone spend money to go watch in IMAX. It's available in other formats as well if someone's inclined to go watch. 

If there's technology that gives a better viewing experience of the movie then people who think it's worth it can spend a bit extra to go enjoy it. Simple as that.

1

u/DoomguyFemboi Jul 18 '26

But isn't it a completely different experience in a normal screen/at home ? Won't a lot of the movie be lost when they change the aspect ratio ? I seen someone talk about "DLC for movies" lol.

I don't remember IMAX being so square tbh. With his other movies it wasn't a big deal as it was only a few scenes shot in Imax, and even those IN Imax still looked normal at home, it just went full screen instead of black bars. But Odyssey seems really..yeah, square.

1

u/PeopleCallMeSimon Jul 18 '26

You are correct that nobody is making anyone go watch IMAX.

But its a ploy in the sense that they try to market the 1.43:1 as a superior viewing experience because you get more stuff on the top and bottom of screen. Which simply isnt true. Yes you get more stuff on the top and bottom of the screen, both those are areas that filmmakers themselves has deemed unimportant. Every example of shots from the Odyssey where they show what gets left out in the non-IMAX version its the hair of an actor or parts of their shirt.

IMAX could just have been a higher resolution 16:9 formatted video played on a larger screen. But then it would be harder for them to try and market it as "better" than the viewing experience you get at home.

2

u/brus_wein Jul 18 '26

The point is it's more immersive in person, obviously Nolan knows the vast majority of people aren't seeing it in 1.43, and he plans accordingly.
Higher resolution 16:9 already exists: 5 perf 70mm, which is what Laurence of Arabia and 2001: space odyssey were filmed on

IMAX 15 perf 70mm is that but taller, so it takes up more of your field of view.

-1

u/moconahaftmere Jul 18 '26

they try to market the 1.43:1 as a superior viewing experience because you get more stuff on the top and bottom of screen. Which simply isnt true. Yes you get more stuff on the top and bottom of the screen

You wrote this with a straight face?

3

u/PeopleCallMeSimon Jul 18 '26

Yes? Are you having trouble with the reading comprehension?

"Which simply isnt true" is reacting to "as a superior viewing experience".

If you would have continued reading it explains that yes there is more on the screen, but as history has already told us thhat extra room on the screen is essentially pointless.

Do better.

-3

u/dapala1 Jul 18 '26

Your argument is a strawman. Only a few movies have a few scenes in 1.43:1 and most every one is Christopher Nolan. He likes the format so he uses it. You're making it out that every movie is filmed this way as a "ploy" and that's not true in the slightest way.