AVS Forum Special Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Unfortunately, the IMAX Chairman isn't going to be headed out on job interviews anytime soon notwithstanding your objections to his qualifications. That's because you're confusing the aspect ratio arithmetic with the screen's actual surface area in a real world room configured for IMAX.
If I understand your posts correctly, you object to IMAX saying that their aspect ratios are bigger because Cinemascope aspect ratios like 2.40 are higher numbers than 1.43.
But the fact is, IMAX screens fill virtually the entire wall at the screen end of a theater room. A 2.40 screen on that same wall would have far LESS surface area than IMAX's wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling screens. A 2.40 screen would be equally wide, but not nearly as tall. A 2.76 screen for Ben Hur would have even less surface area even though 2.76 is a bigger number still.
So, IMAX's Chairman is correct. An IMAX Screen is bigger. 2.40 is a WIDER ratio, but it's neither wider nor bigger once the screen has reached the limits of the room boundaries in direct comparison to an IMAX screen wall. To the target audience that the Chairman is addressing - which I assure you is not us - his comment makes perfect sense.