Is IMAX the next step on cinema.

IMAX is not a major film distribution format due to its expense. Besides, would you really want to go back to 1.44:1?

I don't think it would replace Scope in cinemas simply because Scope in 80+% of cinemas the world over is the largest 35mm format. In the home, you can project and ratio as large or small as you like. The reason so many of us went CinemaScope in the home was to allow us to more accurately project movies in the Scope format. Most of us have already maxed out our height, so adding 33% width was the logical choice.

Just because there have been 3 movies were intentionally shot to be projected at IMAX does not mean that the format will dominate at the cinema or at home. CinemaScope has been used in cinemas since the 1950's, and there are over 10,000 films in this format compared to just 3. And 2 of those were really "hybrids" where for the most part they were CinemaScope with special portions only taking advantage of the extra height. Then, when both of these films came to BD, both were re-framed from 1.44:1 to 1.78:1, so both lost their true height anyway.

Quite pointless if you ask me.

Yea, I don't see it being more than a niche and I wouldn't even call it the next step. The main track is scope with a side track of IMAX. I love IMAX but it isn't the next step.

art

Imax is not going to be the next thing in home theater. It is awesome on a 6 story high screen, but in an HT environment it is no match for CinemaScope and , as CAVX has pointed out, looks more like the old 4:3 format.
So if Imax is not the next thing in HT, what is?
3D? I don't think so. As it has been throughout the cinema's history, 3D is a periodic novelty item. The fact that the latest 3D technology is virtually flawless means little - people are just not going to wear glasses to watch movies in their homes. It will catch on for the game crowd, but thats about it.
So if the next thing in HT is not Imax or 3D, what is?

To me IMAX has less to do with aspect ratios and more to do with the aim of immersion, like you are in the movie. The field of view for the original IMAX cinemas were 60-120 degrees horizontal 40-80 degrees vertical, and screen white level was 22 foot lamberts. While SMPTE standards are only 39+ degrees horizontal for 2.35:1 films, white level 12-22ftL.

Apparently the best seats in the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Science Samuel Goldwyn Theater, designed to present films at maximum technical accuracy, are 60-75 degrees horizontal field of view. The front row is over 100 degrees and the back seats just under 40 degrees.

What horizontal field of view does the screen occupy in peoples home setups, what screen white level do they have. If it is already big and bright it is already equivalent to an IMAX in my opinion.

The thing about IMAX is that it was never intended to show films like TDK, TF2 or HP6 or even Avatar. The only movie I've ever seen in an IMAX was Fantasia 2000 so I could experience this film in 70mm instead of 35mm.

The IMAX I saw that film in has since been converted to show 35mm films. In this case, the owners have kept the width (25m) of the screen and re-masked the height for CinemaScope. The system is CIH and it does work because the height has been reduced.

The two direct radiator surrounds have also been replaced with arrays for Surround. It supports DD EX and DTS.

Late to the party but...

I pretty much agree with everyone here. I see no real likilhood of IMAX being the "next thing" in home theater. By nature it's just too unwieldy for most people to attempt. For me IMAX is mostly a theater-going experience impossible to fully replicate in any home.
And like I've mentioned in similar threads, it seems an awful lot of trouble to go to, given the meager hand full of IMAX source content available to us.

On the other hand: I guess it's a similar situation to home theater in general: virtually none of us actually have commercial theater sized screens - we are just doing our best to at least replicate commercial viewing angles for a cinema-like immersion. To that extent I guess I shouldn't poo-poo the possibility of accomidating IMAX images in-home, if someone is so motivated and can manage the viewing angles.

I am one of those rare creatures who has tried to bring as much flexibility to my system as possible in terms of screen size, including accommodating xtra large image sizes - to the degree possible in my room. (See threads below my name, if interested).
I wasn't trying to meet any particular viewing angle per se - I just fit a big mother of a screen into my room to give me as much flexibility for image sizes as possible.

With 4 way masking and a big screen available, I typically watch 2:35:1 content anywhere between 105" and 120" wide and 16:9 content from 102" diagonal to 110" diagonal (most often). However I can do up to around 130" diagonal for IMAX content (I think I can push it a bit more if need be). From my sofa, if I put another pillow behind my back that can get me close to 9 feet from my screen, which gets around a 55 degree viewing angle - just under the 60 degree minimum recommended IMAX viewing angles (at least in some IMAX implementations). With such a viewing angle it certainly takes on a much more IMAX-like sensation than my normal screen sizes (or any other in-home screen size/viewing angles I've personally encountered).

IMAX effect is based on screen distance and not on the aspect ratio.

MAthew Orman

And also the fact that 70mm film has about 6x the area of 35mm. You can sit much closer. Now that IMAX is all but dead (sorry 2K digital just does not cut it for me on screens that big), the focus now seems to be on 3D. 4K might have worked here if the cost of the projectors had been more reasonable.