IMAX Develops Movie Transfer Technology 513
kazama writes: "Toronto-based IMAX said that it had developed a new process called DMR (for "digital remastering") to digitally convert conventional 35mm films to the IMAX format without significant loss of detail. 'Our customers have been saying to us for years, "We want to see Star Wars on IMAX, we want to see The Matrix on IMAX." and DMR is the technology which is the enabler,' Co-CEO Bradley Wechsler told Reuters. 'That's going to be an increasingly important part of the company's performance.'" So what movies would you want to see on IMAX?
for me... (Score:2, Funny)
pr0n. lots of pr0n.
Now THAT'S what I call big breasts! (Score:2)
Heh heh... forget porn... they should do an Amazing Nurse Nanako [bootyproject.org] marathon...
How do they do it now? (Score:5, Interesting)
But recently, I went to the local mega theater to see SpiderMan, and was suprised to learn they were showing it on the IMAX screen. I expected the same thing, but it wasn't - it was a full sized IMAX image, and the image quality seemed fine to me.
So if this technology in the article is some new innovation, how are they doing it right now, and what are the disadvantages of the current approach?
Re:How do they do it now? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How do they do it now? (Score:2)
I think the audio in IMAX theaters is digital as is the sound track for most modern movies, so someone already digitized it, all is left is for them to work some magic on those bits to try to get more out of them.
I don't get it either. You can't shine shit. You can't recreate information that was orginally lost when shooting on 35mm.
Faux detail from a 35mm print (Score:2)
You can't shine shit. You can't recreate information that was orginally lost when shooting on 35mm.
However, you can recognize textures from one frame to the next, or use the fractal transform to create faux detail, or whatever other proprietary techniques this "DMR" system uses.
Re:How do they do it now? (Score:3, Informative)
Imax, 65mm negative, oriented horizontally, 71mm x 53mm image size
65mm, 65mm negative oriented vertically, 50mm x 27mm image size
35mm, 35mm negative oriented vertically, 24mm x 18mm image size
Super 35 or masked, 35 mm negative orieted vertically, 21mm x 11mm image size.
Re:How do they do it now? (Score:2)
You found it while I was still looking. I was even wondering about this in my initial post.
I was surprized to find the IMAX A/R is 1.43:1, or TV like. But it makes sense thinking back to how the screen looks, it isn't much wider than it it tall. It is just REALLY big.
Okay, next question. What is the "resolution" of the film used. How many "dots" per square mm? We know it is 48 frames a second.
Oh, and the audio format for IMAX is 8 or 10 channel. They actually store the sound track on CDs (4 or 5). The film itself only contains sync information to keep all the CDs in the right place.
I wonder if they have any plans to increase the quality of the audio portion. 44.1kHz/16-bit is pretty poor these days (yes, I can hear the difference going to 96kHz/24-bit).
Re:How do they do it now? (Score:4, Interesting)
You can use digital techniques on some analog images to sharpen the image a bit. However, it would also likely sharpen the film grains, which you don't want.
Thus, they probably have another technique which cleans up the film grain by comparing it to subsequent and/or prior frames.
For example, if there is a dot at point X in frame 120, but that same dot is *not* in point X in frame 119 and frame 121, then it is taken out or reduced in magnitude. In most movie images the scene does not change significantly from frame to frame. Thus, you can take advantage of this duplication to figure out what is likely film noise.
(If the background around the example dot in 119 and 121 is different, then perhaps you leave it alone because it may signify movement there. Graininess is harder for the eye to notice around movement anyhow.)
Re:How do they do it now? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, and you can [dynip.com] try it yourself [virtualdub.org]. Its VERY much worth the effort, even if it takes a lot longer to postprocess your video.
The more random the noise, the better. Its excellent for TV shows on VHS or from broadcast TV (or so I've found).
Oh, and if you like to make things disappear without noticing it (great for those HUGE ads in the corner of a TV show) try this [republika.pl], or this [mordor.net].
[Somebody with some experience please port these to Linux! You would be so well thanked! This [berkeley.edu] would be really nice too! No, I can't do it myself, I'm really not that good.]
Re:How do they do it now? (Score:2, Interesting)
Edward
Star Wars.. (Score:2)
I wouldn't imagine I am the only one either
What else? (Score:3, Funny)
Interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw LOTR on the imax screen here in Calgary. My girlfriend got annoyed watching it though - too blurry and it gave her motion sickness. We could have done the same thing with Spider-Man but we saw it on a regular screen instead.
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
Oh Man!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Don't Bother... (Score:2, Funny)
ANOTHER Lucas remake? (Score:5, Funny)
The possibilities are, unfortunately, endless...
Re:ANOTHER Lucas remake? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ANOTHER Lucas remake? (Score:4, Funny)
And don't forget that all of the guns will be replaced with walkie-talkies, and the entire cast will be replaced with digitally-created Ewoks!
FREE HAT!!!
Re:ANOTHER Lucas remake? (Score:2)
Re:ANOTHER Lucas remake? (Score:2)
Great Slashdot Poll (Score:5, Funny)
Which movie would you like to see in IMAX?
:o)
Re:Great Slashdot Poll (Score:2)
Re:Great Slashdot Poll (Score:2)
Either one, I guess. I had both in mind when I mentioned it.
I can't believe I forgot Lord of the Rings. I also can't believe I spelled CowboyNeal's name wrong. Oh well...
Re:(OT) your sig (Score:2)
For those just tuning in, my sig line is a quote from Cowboy Bebop, from the episode titled "Heavy Metal Queen".
We now return to your regularly scheduled discussion.
This movie is a pretty good choice for an imax (Score:2)
http://www.stepintoliquid.com/
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/step_
I want to see a good movie, thank you. (Score:2)
Re:I want to see a good movie, thank you. (Score:2)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Score:2, Insightful)
Movies I want to see... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Movies I want to see... (Score:2)
DMR?? (Score:3, Insightful)
DigiRema sounds pretty cool though... or DiRema maybe. I have nothing more useful to contribute at this time.
Re:DMR?? (Score:2)
hence DMR not DRM.
Re:DMR?? (Score:2)
DRM: Digital Rights Management. Been talked about A LOT recently.
Check out the following sites:
Microsoft's DRM site [microsoft.com]
Or for a better perspective, see Everything2 [everything2.com] a geeky must have as far as any random information goes.
or google it [google.com]
Just for the sake of nostalgia... (Score:2)
Disney struck a few 70mm prints of Tron in 1999... (Score:4, Informative)
OT:
Before the screening there was a little round-table discussion and Q/A session with Steven Lisburger (writer/director), Bruce Boxleitner (who played Alan/Tron), Cindy Morgan (who played Lora/Yori), and one of the Abel systems people who made all those computer animated sequences possible - I think it was Tim McGovern. The director mentioned that he always thought of TRON as "the Bill Gates story" - i.e. the plucky young programmer breaking the shackles of centralized control (IBM). He said a lot of other stuff I didn't care about - I always hated the actual plot and acting of the film - but at least the Abel Systems guy got to talk a bit about doing CGI in 1982.
-Isaac
Re: (Score:2)
screw conversion... (Score:2)
conversion cannot create detail out of nothing. you can fudge and guess but the big draw of IMAX is the insane detail on the insane side screen.
Sorry but if they shot Everest on cheap-ol 35MM film and tried to pass it off as an IMAX film with conversion it would have lost almost every bit of it's impact by losing the detail and resolution.
pr0n? no. (Score:5, Funny)
I've seen a lot of posts already saying, "sh0w suM pr0n!!!!1!!!"
People, think about what you're saying. Pornography (at least the modern sort) is shot for the small screen. The very small screen. Nineteen inch televisions or, even worse, computer monitors. As a result, its directors often go for the extreme closeup, usually to great effect.
Now think about these closeups on IMAX. Gaping orifices of every level of hygeine standing several stories high? I don't know about you, but that sounds more "nauseating" than "erotic."
So please, think twice before you request porn on the (really) big screen. This has been a public service announcement(TM).
Re:pr0n? no. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:pr0n? no. (Score:3, Funny)
If you actually like that kind of thing, a company called Goatse has found a way to give you the same effect on small screens by increasing the size of the orifice relative to the picture (and body).
Thus, you don't really need IMAX for that. A representative from goatse will probly post the URL's any second now for those interested.
Re:pr0n? no. (Score:3, Informative)
Needless to say, if the slightly-violent Haunted Castle can't make it on the big screen, What Reams May Come is going to stay at 35mm:
http://www.bigmoviezone.com/features/newsinbrief_
If you check the link, you'll also note they announced back in March 2001 that this new technology would be ready "within twelve months"... oops.
I'd like to see IMAX on IMAX! (Score:2)
For example:
Tomorrow in Space
To Fly!
Titanica
Re:I'd like to see IMAX on IMAX! (Score:2)
On The Wings
L5: First City In Space
Hail Columbia!
and
The Dream Is Alive, a movie about the shuttle program released just before the Challenger disaster.
These are great, but the only thing you can find is the (albeit neat) Space Station 3d and some 'Xtreme' stunts movie.
Blade (Score:2)
Picture might be clear but... (Score:4, Interesting)
For action films lots of people might want to see them first run on the IMAX screen. I don't know about dramas. Who wants to see Road to Perdition on a giant screen? Or worse yet, When Harry Met Sally?
Of course this trend might annoy George Lucas. I am not aware of any digital project capability for IMAX theaters. They would need a really impressive high resolution digital projector to go to IMAX size. Which reminds me, most IMAX movies run for a long time. I mean they are at the theater for about a year. I would guess that the film is expensive to produce and transport. Would it make economic sense to convert The Matrix? How many people would pay $10 to see it again on a really big screen? Maybe first run movies would be a better bet.
Re:Picture might be clear but... (Score:3, Informative)
Has anyone actually seen the IMAX camera? It's a very large and heavy camera [naia.com.fj] where each roll occupies about 2.5 minutes of film.
I always wondered if there is a digital form of the IMAX camera in development. It certainly would be more manageable than the film version. Reload would be a matter of switching a hard drive, rather than feeding film. The amount of record time would most likely be similar to the film version, but at least the camera would have less downtime to change the hard drive.
And don't get me started on a digital IMAX projector...
Then again, I don't claim to know what the other problems there may be with a digital version. I just hope that the idea is at least being worked on.
Re: (Score:2)
A few thoughts... (Score:5, Informative)
I, for one, would love to see The Matrix on an IMAX screen. I think it would be a great experience.
That's why you go to a theater you know. For the experience. Otherwise, DVD and VHS would've killed them a long time ago. Why bother paying high ticket prices and overcharged on underbuttered popcorn and $7 drinks? Because there's something magical about being in a huge auditorium, in a room filled with strangers, going on imaginary adventures with people who never existed.
I would kill to see a marathon of Star Wars (Ep. 1,2,4,5, & 6) on IMAX (and of course do it again once Ep. 3 is finished). It would be a wonderful experience. The sights, the sounds, I think there would be absolutely nothing like it.
But there's a lot to think about here.
Firstly you have the screen itself. Last year, when Beauty and the Beast made more bundles of cash by making a "Special IMAX Edition" there had to be a change. And I'm not talking resolution, I'm talking frame-wise.
IMAX screens are 1.33:1 (television) aspect ratios. Most films are 1.85:1, and most of the classics are 2.35:1
So when they blow up films to fit this huge screen, not only are they losing resolution, they're losing part of the image all over again. It's called Pan & Scan, or Hack 'N Slash, depending on your viewpoint.
I could go on the huge tirade about how P&S is awful, how its destroying cinema as we know it, how it scares away Joe Blow from the infamous "black bars" and "why can't I see the rest of the picture" bullshit that myself and others have dealt with for years (ie, those in defense of widescreen).
The point is that The Matrix was not filmed in "Open Matte." Open Matte is where the black bars are put there intentionally, so the film can be shown in theaters properly. So when the home video comes around, you don't even have to worry about loss of picture, because the 1.33:1 frame actually shows more than what you originally saw in the theater (the great Run Lola Run was done this way). In those cases IMAX reproduction would rely solely on the resolution, with nothing else to worry about.
However, most of the films that are "classics" are in 2.35:1 "Superscope" meaning that when you pan and scan, you lose up to 33% of the film. For example, you have Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Arc (all of the Indiana Jones films for that matter), Lawrence of Arabia, Pulp Fiction, etc etc. The list can go on.
So when you think about IMAX reproduction of films, the frame is more important than the resolution. If you pan and scan a classic, you don't get the classic, you get what an editor "chose" to see at a particular point. And this to me is paramount.
Spaceballs and Starship Troopers (Score:2)
And come on, giant bugs diving at me at Imax size can't be beat.
IMAX locations? (Score:2, Interesting)
If they're all in museums and such, then I don't see the point in releasing the latest summer blockbuster there.
Of (Score:2)
70mm vs 35mm (Score:4, Informative)
IMAX = 70mm run sideways (Score:2, Informative)
-Fzz
Re:IMAX = 70mm run sideways (Score:2)
Re:70mm vs 35mm (Score:2)
What movies do I want to see on IMAX? (Score:2)
Armatage III OVA version - Especially the final battle.
Tenchi Muyo OVA
Princess Minoko
The Rats of Nihm
[Before you flame me, I freely admit my spelling sux]
CTHD (Score:2)
Movies I would like to see at an IMAX (Score:5, Funny)
Ishtar
C.H.U.D
Licence to Drive
Ladybugs
Chairman of the Board (with the irrepressable Carrottop!)
Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit
The Master of Disguise
The Country Bears
and finally, the #1 Movie I would like to see at an IMAX: Air Bud 4: Seventh Inning Fetch!
A guy can dream, can't he?
Scientology involved in IMAX? (Score:2)
He'll probably ramble on about Xenu or something. Hoo boy. This could be a conspiracy, huh?
--
It's a joke. Laugh.
imax dmr (Score:4, Informative)
IMAX and the Hollywood studios don't want some hack to display regular film onto an IMAX sized screen. Its going to look bad, period. Even if you go to a multiplex that has a "very large screen" (General Cinema's Green Monster Screen in Boston, MA comes to mind) movies look like crap on it. Jittery and grainy.
However, IMAX and the Hollywood studios are waking up to the fact of revenue potential from full feature length films being shown on IMAX sized screens. Of course this must be done according to IMAX's brand level of quality. IMAX DMR represents the initiative to do get this done. The first feature length hollywood film to be shown with this technology will be Apollo 13. So if you think you have seen a movie with this technology and it wasn't Apollo 13 pre-screen and you were a member of the public when you saw it, then you are deluding yourself.
Disney's Beauty and the Beast represented an earlier "beta" generation of this technology. So if you saw that you get some idea.
Text of a press release follows
Universal Pictures, Imagine Entertainment and IMAX Corporation bring Apollo 13: The IMAX Experience to IMAX screens worldwide.
Apollo 13 tells the dramatic true story of the heroic actions needed to bring a three-astronaut crew safely back to Earth after the Apollo 13 space mission suffered catastrophic mechanical problems en route to the Moon. Made with NASA's collaboratioin, the highly-suspenseful film is scientifically and historically accurate. Apollo 13 features strong performances from the ensemble cast, led by Oscar®-winning actor Tom Hanks, and brilliant direction by Ron Howard, another Oscar winner. Apollo 13 will be digitally re-mastered into IMAX's 15/70 format using the revolutionary IMAX DMRTM technology.
Already been done (Score:2, Funny)
Austin Powers!! (Score:2)
Yeah baby!!
Strange that this would finally come up... (Score:2)
1. Too big.
2. Too loud.
I know that sounds kinda prudish and totally un-male of me, but there is a line that you have to draw when pursuing that "bigger, better, faster, more..." method of evolution. When you actually have to turn your head from side to side because the screen exceeds your field of vision, you're well across that line.
For a realistic movie experience... (Score:2)
Micrososmos would be pretty amazing too.
Movies (Score:2)
Dr. Zhivago
Lawrence of Arabia (oh yeah!)
in fact, pretty much anything by David Lean.
The perspective is going to be wrong. (Score:2)
Contact and LOTR please :) (Score:2, Interesting)
Back to the post...I'd love to see the shots in Contact where Jody Foster is "time/space traveling" in IMAX, tho I'd be afraid of flashing back to my Deadhead days. (who am I kidding..I've never completely left)
And not to restate an obvious Slashdot reader favorite but Lord of the Rings would translate very well IMHO. The orcs would be THAT MUCH BIGGER and the battle scenes gargantuan to add to their already epic look.
My $.02 over and over again!
*cough* (Score:2)
So what movies would you want to see on IMAX? (Score:2)
I want to see Creamy Banana 21 in all it's glory!!!
Oh, wait
Digital animation (Score:2)
It would be great to see Toy Story I/II, Antz, Monsters Inc. and Ice Age rendered at hundreds of megapixels per frame.
Re:Digital animation (Score:2)
Re:Digital animation (Score:2)
I don't think the Imax film reels are large enough to a feature-length film, but I'd certainly pay $20 to go see Toy Story (2), Monsters, Bugs Life, etc.
Uhhh... (Score:3, Insightful)
How the hell does DMR stand for "Digital Re-Mastering"?
Re:Uhhh... (Score:3, Informative)
How the hell does DMR stand for "Digital Re-Mastering"?
DMR stands for Digital Movie Remastering
So how does making the neg bigger improve the img? (Score:5, Informative)
How is 'remastering' an image that is shot on 35mm film improve when you blow it up to 70mm? I mean, realistically, what this is saying is that you don't need to ever shoot 4x5 cameras- just shoot 35mm and all that precious details will magically come out when you digitize it. Poor Ansel Adams- if he had been alive now he could just use his $35 disposable camera and get those huge blowups with startling detail
OK I think you've caught the drift. Film has a limited resolution. Original IMAX uses 70mm film to get 4x the negative area (hence they can resolve quite a bit more detail than standard film). The only advantage I see to this is the marketing ploy- Genuine IMAX Film SIZE!. You don't gain detail, you don't gain ANYTHING that isn't already on the film. And since you are starting off on a small format to begin with, its not going to get better.
Now don't get me wrong, you can improve some work with digital sharpening and whatnot- going to a larger format helps there. But it in't going to give you the same quality of an IMAX experience compared with a film that is 70mm. It just can't be done. See my earlier jibes about 4x5 cameras if you need further humour
Re:So how does making the neg bigger improve the i (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course this process isn't going to achieve the same quality as if you actually recorded 70mm film in the camera. But cutting out one or two generations of 35mm printing can help - e.g. SW:Episode II had very little grain in the film release prints, since they were all first-generation copies of ILM's digitally-recorded negatives.
Movies to see in IMAX (Score:2, Informative)
a) Pink Floyd's "The Wall?" That was messed up enough on the "big" screen; I can only IMAGINE what it would be like to be wasted and seeing that on an IMAX screen.
b) I always liked "Battlestar Galactica" but I don't think it was ever a full screen movie, was it?
c) Indiana Jones was probably already mentioned.
d) Titanic, while predictable, would probably be pretty cool blown up 3-4 times.
e) "The Fast and the Furious" would be REALLY cool big AND loud.
My $0.02 worth.
image resolution (Score:2, Informative)
It's mostly grain removal (Score:3, Informative)
Digital grain removal is going to be useful. I look forward to when it's a filter in most video edit programs. There's lots of old 16mm historical footage that could use cleanup for grain and transport jitter.
Amusingly, there's a commercial process for film grain insertion [filmlook.com], which is supposed to make video "look like film".
Fools! Can't you see the Obvious?!? (Score:4, Funny)
How many of you realize that DMR is just a cleverly disguised ANAGRAM of D R M!!!
Yes, it took me several months of painstaking research to find the truth, and I may be killed or worse for posting it here!
That's right! DMR is just a way for the MPAA to sneak DRM past you unsuspecting tech junkies.
You poor bastards, you're unwittingly HELPING the MPAA!!!
A Documentary... (Score:2)
Opening scene from Saving Private Ryan (Score:2)
I think the answer is pretty obvious... (Score:2)
Awesome...
The obvious movies to enlarge (Score:2)
Incredible Shrinking Man
Attack of the 50 Foot Woman
Them!
Giant
The Iron Giant
My Dinner with Andre the Giant
anything with Ray Harryhausen animation
The Unshrinkable Jerry Mouse
Lawrence of Arabia because . . . (Score:2)
I've seen plenty o' films on IMAX screens (Score:2)
As far as I'm concerned, the movies look just fine as it is. I'm betting that one of the criteria is that the theater have a 70mm print available, but otherwise it's great. The picture stretches to both edges of the screen (though not the full height). So long as it's not an old, battered print, the image looks fine. Sound is great.
I think what IMAX is offering here is to take a film and blow it up to full IMAX specs. As far as I can tell, all this means is that IMAX will be able to capitalize on what's already common practice -- IMAX theaters screening non-IMAX movies on the big screen.
So let's see. Average cost of a 120 minute film on a regular screen at the Metreon? $9.50. Average cost of a 20 minute IMAX movie at the Metreon? $9.50. Average cost of a full-length IMAX format film, then, would be
It's not my favourite file but.... (Score:2)
Lawrence or Arabia
Not the best film of all time, but one of the greats. The shots of the desert simply take my breath away. And I've only ever seen it on TV.
And on IMAX?
Well, I'd probably wet my pants
Bring back 5-perf 70mm instead (Score:3, Informative)
IMAX is the wrong aspect ratio for most movies.
The proportions are almost like TV (about 1.4:1), whereas most movies made in the last 50 years are much wider than that (some are more than twice as wide). Nearly all movies seen in theatres in the last 20-30 years are one of two aspect ratios -- 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. Fitting those wider frames into an IMAX frame presents exactly the same problem that showing them on TV does. You have to fit a rectangle into a square, rougly speaking. That means either letterbox or pan-and-scan.
However, Apollo 13 will probably transfer to IMAX fairly well, because it was shot in Super 35, which even though it usually is used to produce a 2.35:1 widescreen image, actually has a negative area that is much more squarish (again, about 1.4:1). So I would imagine that the IMAX transfer will make use of that extra image area. For more info on Super-35 see here [widescreen.org], about 3/4ths the way down the page.
Still, many of the movies people mentioned in this article were shot in widescreen processes other than Super-35, and would have to either be severely cropped, or letterboxed within the IMAX frame, in order to be shown from IMAX projectors.
The right thing to do would be to bring back 5-perforation 70mm, which has a nice wide aspect ratio of 2.20:1. During the years from about 1976-1996, most major studio releases had at least some 5-perf 70mm prints struck. Chances are, if you went to the movies in a major US city during that time, you saw a number of films in 70mm six-track, perhaps without even knowing it. (The process was killed off by digital sound in the mid-to-late 1990s.) Everyone saying "I want to see Star Wars!" should realize that it has already been released in 70mm -- back in 1977.
Of course, 5-perf 70mm existed long before the years I just listed, but it was mainly used for films that were actually shot in 65mm. The time period I'm referring to is merely when 35mm->70mm optical blow-ups were popular. This new IMAX process sounds like a bit of a throwback to those days, but at the expense of correct aspect ratios. And the blow-up is now done digitally rather than optically.
Not only is IMAX the wrong aspect ratio for a lot of movies, it's also incompatible standard feature films in many other ways. 35mm feature films these days are shot with lots of tight close-ups and quick cuts, and if you look at the IMAX Filmmaker's Manual [google.com], they very clearly suggest that you not do things like that, because they are very jarring on the IMAX screen!
Due to the above problems, I think people are likely to be disappointed with this in the long run. IMAX is probably pushing this idea because they are hoping this will boost their stock price [yahoo.com].
Re:Ernest goes to Camp! (Score:2)
Why should anyone admit it if you won't?
Silly old AC...
Re:Not the Matrix (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't mind watching Star Wars though, I bet some of the space battles would be pretty beat ass, not to mention watching a bunch of ATAT's crushing Hoth.
Re:Not the Matrix (Score:2)
Which is the first film I saw where I thought "24 frames per second is just not enough".... I wish Douglas Trumball's ShowScan technology had caught on. 60 full frames per second!
Re:Not the Matrix (Score:2)
Re:I don't get the letters (Score:2)
Maybe it stands for Digital Movie Remastering?
As for my choice of movies to watch on Imax.. hmmm.. I think any James Bond movie would be great! Imagine all those chase scenes...
---
It is bad luck to be superstitious.
Re:Na Na, Na Na Na Na (Score:4, Funny)
Ahem. For you younger folk, this isn't another request for more pr0n. Jaws is a classic thriller about an unusually large Great White shark that eats people, starting with a girl skinny dipping in the ocean. Erk...
Well, OK, it's almost pr0n.
Soko
Re:two types of imax (Score:2)
Re:how about... (Score:2)
Re:I want to see LOTR on IMAX (Score:3, Interesting)
Cool vistas? How about Dances With Wolves? With the sound system that most IMAX theatres have, the buffalo hunt would be awesome.
Re:Bout fricken time! (Score:2)
Indiana Jones and the Nazi Relic Temple of Terror?