IMAX CEO promises "more information" about smaller screens

Once a brand that stood for impeccable picture quality—not to mention giant screens—IMAX has taken an incredible (and deserved) beating in the past weeks over its new, smaller digital screens, which left many a moviegoer feeling duped after they'd coughed up big bucks for tickets. Now, the chief exec is pledging to "give people more information" about what they'll be watching.

Speaking to Los Angeles Times columnist Patrick Goldstein, IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond promised that the company—now in the midst of rolling out hundreds of new DLP IMAX screens, some of which are about the same size as a standard movie screen—will "do something about disclosing information. Period ... we are going to give people more information—it's just a matter of how and where."

The brouhaha over the new, smaller IMAX screens began percolating earlier this year, shortly after IMAX began retrofitting scores of existing multiplex screens (at a cost of about $150,000 a screen, according to Reuters) with twin, DLP-powered IMAX projectors. Other enhancements include sound system upgrades, as well as tearing out the first few rows of seats and moving the screen closer to the audience. (Check out Gizmodo for more details on the retrofitting process.)

Movie lovers began chirping around the time that the IMAX version of "Watchmen" came out in March, with viewers complaining that the digital IMAX screens (which, for now at least, aren't marked as such online or in print advertising) weren't nearly as big as the 70-foot monsters we've come to know and love.

No less an authority than Roger Ebert chimed in back in April, calling out IMAX for having "lowered its traditional standards and the value of its famous name … to charge extra for this IMAX experience is false advertising."

The flap finally burst into the mainstream earlier this month, when "Parks and Recreation" actor Aziz Ansari went into a hilarious (and expletive-filled, so consider yourself warned) tirade on his blog over the "FAKE IMAX" screens.

Not having been to an IMAX movie since "The Dark Knight" last year (at a "real" IMAX theater, the AMC Loews Lincoln Square in Manhattan), I decided to give the new IMAX a try yesterday afternoon. I sauntered over to the AMC Empire 25 in Times Square, where "Night at the Museum" was playing in a digital IMAX theater.

I walked in … and thought I was in the wrong theater. Yes, the screen was big—about 58 feet across, according to Ansari's blog—but not much bigger than other big screens in New York, such as the 52-foot Ziegfeld, which charges standard ticket prices. (I paid $17.50 for my ticket to the Empire IMAX, versus $12.50 for the Ziegfeld.)

And once the movie started up, I noticed that the picture quality wasn't mind-blowing, either. I'm not talking about the fact that "Night at the Museum" wasn't shot in IMAX (35mm films are upconverted for the IMAX format), but rather the distractingly visible "screen door effect"—a fine, mesh-like pattern caused by the grid of pixels—that made me feel like I was watching the movie on a big computer monitor.

Did I feel ripped off as I stormed out of the theater? You bet.

Of course, the IMAX company could have avoided the whole controversy by simply informing ticket buyers that they'd be seeing a smaller, digital IMAX presentation, not the gargantuan, film-based IMAX.

While he's a little late, I'm glad to see that IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond has promised better disclosure (of the "full" variety, I'd hope)—and hey, knocking a buck or two off the ticket price for DLP IMAX theaters wouldn't hurt, either.

So, have you been to one of the digital IMAX theaters yet (and what did you see)? How did it stack up to regular IMAX? Was it worth the extra cash, or did you feel ripped off?

Correction: In my original post, I wrote that Aziz Ansari had his bad IMAX experience at the AMC Empire in Times Square; in fact, he went to a digital IMAX showing in Burbank. Sorry for the goof (and thanks for the tip, Steve).

Related:
Imax flap over screen size marks opportunity to own up [Los Angeles Times]