How the Phantom Menace 3D Trailer Really Improves Episode I

From: http://gizmodo.com/

Watching the official trailer, I get the feeling that not even Lucasfilm is convinced that a third dimension is going to improve The Phantom Menace. So they've instead they've opted for Plan B in the trailer for the 3D re-release: the eradication of Jar Jar Binks.

Can we finally agree that likes 3D? The effect doesn't enhance the moviegoing experience even when originally shot with fancy 3D technology, but the Phantom Menace was released well before the 3D fad ruined our Friday nights. So it has to be manually converted to leap from the screen, with results that Ebert has lambasted far more eloquently than we could.

But we see through you, Lucasfilm! You can hide Jar Jar Binks in this trailer all you want, and the movie actually looks kind of decent without him. But you and I both know know he's still out there, lurking, waiting to shove his particularly awful brand of terribleness that even more in our faces, floppy ears jangling wildly as he jumps out of the screen and into our nightmares. [YouTube via TheForce.net]

The Future of IMAX is… Lasers!

  by Jen Yamato

from http://www.movieline.com/

By the year 2013, IMAX theaters and Kodak will bring digital theatrical projection to the next level with a single, exciting, futuristic-sounding concept: LASERS! The companies announced their partnership today in a statement promising advances in quality projection in large-scale IMAX and dome theaters in the coming years to benefit moviegoers, theaters, and investors. Win-win-win?
“This Kodak intellectual property is truly cutting edge,” said IMAX CEO Richard L. Gelfond in a press release today, “and will be used by IMAX’s esteemed Technology Group to enhance the cinematic experience for consumers, enable the application of digital technology in our larger and institutional theatres, and make being in business with IMAX even easier and more profitable.”
IMAX is exclusively licensing over 50 Kodak laser and digital projection-related patents and technologies that promise to enhance the visual experience and light quality of the IMAX experience, as well as make content distribution within the IMAX network easier.
“Because this technology produces the deepest blacks, and the brightest 3D of any system demonstrated to date,” said Kim Snyder of Eastman Kodak Company, “it will truly make the movies more exciting for consumers, and that creates a strong value proposition for the studios and exhibitors as well.”
Meanwhile, Kodak has in recent years been developing laser projection technology, which previously fell under separate laser-specific regulations. In February, the company got the go-ahead from the FDA to bring their technology to cinema theaters (vs. specialized laser shows, etc.). According to Kodak’s website, the features of their Laser Projection Technology include combined 2-D and 3-D projection,” 3-D images “twice as bright” as those used in standard industry practice, and 2K resolution scalable to 4K. In a statement last spring, Kodak explained the initiative:

Typically, digital projection systems using high power lasers fall under the definition of a “demonstration laser” and must follow existing regulations for conventional laser projectors, such as those used in laser light show displays. Kodak has been working in conjunction with laser safety consultants and the FDA to address potential safety issues.

KODAK Laser Projection Technology promises to bring vastly improved image quality to theater screens, including significantly brighter 3D viewing, and to dramatically reduce costs to digital projection in cinemas through the innovative use of long-life lasers, lower-cost optics and more efficient energy usage.

Could lasers be the key to the future of theatrical moviegoing? Will it make the sucky peripheral IMAX seats you get when you arrive late suck any less? Would Jim Cameron approve? Stay tuned…
[Press release, Kodak]

Now it's 4D film: The high-tech cinemas which will make you feel sick, damp... and punched

By Daily Mail Reporter
From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
Hollywood is converting blockbuster films into 4-D because cinemagoers are shunning pricey multi-dimensional 3-D versions


But the experience has left some fans feeling sick, damp and pummeled after watching movies like Kung Fu Panda 2 and the latest Pirates of the Caribbean box-office hit.

A Korean company has built cinemas with seats which rock and special effects like wind, fog, strobe lights and scents are synchronised with the on-screen action.

Success in 4-D: Kung Fu Panda 2 with the voice of Jack Black as panda Po

The company, CJ 4DPlex, has opened an office in Los Angeles where computer programmes are written for the action films.

It plans to build America's first 4-D screen multiplex in New York and if it is a success, they will expand into Europe.

The biggest 4-D film in Seoul last week was Kung Fu Panda, the martial arts cartoon adventure with the voices of Jack Black, playing panda Po and Angelina Jolie.

 

A Korean blogger called Prof Miscreant reported in the Sunday Times: 'The seats have massage chair motors so that they punch you (lightly) in the kidneys or bottom when Po gets hit or falls down.

'At the end bubbles floated down from the ceiling to simulate fireworks - hilarious and well worth the 18,000 won (£10) ticket price.'

Blockbuster Avatar: Special 4-D audience effects were a huge hit with Korean movie fans

But not every movie fan is happy with the physical effects. 


Some customers complained of feeling damp from the water effects after watching Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides but 'smelling sweet' like Captain Sparrow star Johnny Depp.

And there were reports of people becoming nauseous and going temporarily deaf after watching Transformers: Dark of the Moon where the major smell is the scent of burnt rubber.

CJ 4DPlex was the first company to make a 4-D version of James Cameron's 3-D futuristic blockbuster Avatar. 


Audiences lapped up the smell of explosives and the howling wind effects so much so that the company is opening another three 4-D cinemas with seats that bend backwards and fly into the air.

A Seoul film distributor told Variety magazine: 'They are in a niche right now, like Imax giant screens a decade ago.'

Transformers 3: Or, How James Cameron Got Michael Bay to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love 3-D

by Jen Yamato
from http://www.movieline.com/

When Michael Bay’s Transformers: Dark of the Moon barrels into theaters this summer in 3-D — the first 3-D outing for the film series and for Bay himself — you’ll have one man to thank for it: James Cameron. Fittingly, Bay took the stage at a Transformers 3 footage screening Wednesday night on the Paramount Studios lot to compare notes on the format, its future, and its frustrating limitations with none other than Cameron himself.

Sitting side-by-side with moderator Jay Fernandez of The Hollywood Reporter leading a conversation filled with tech details and friendly banter, Bay and Cameron took it back to the beginning, when Avatar had yet to prove itself worth the giant leap of faith and money and Bay was still hesitant to leave his comfort zone.

Having once invited Bay years ago to the set of Titanic, a film whose vertical sinking ship set piece is evoked in a building-toppling sequence from Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Cameron welcomed Bay onto the set of Avatar while he was in production. But Bay, a purist at heart who still prefers film over digital, felt alienated by Cameron’s tech-heavy production. “3-D is all ones and zeroes,” Bay explained to the audience of journalists and film students. When Paramount asked him to make Transformers 3 in 3-D, Bay says, Cameron (“the man who talked me into it”) insisted he give it a shot: “[He said] Michael, we’ve done everything. You’ve got to look at it as a toy, another tool to get emotion and character in the experience.”

Cameron, meanwhile, has been drinking the 3-D Kool-Aid for years. It was his desire to make 3-D a viable cinematic form that led him to abandon film for digital in 1997, knowing that the advancement of digital tools was a prerequisite for working in 3-D.

[SLIDESHOW: Click for images from Transformers: Dark of the Moon.]

But current 3-D rigs aren’t yet ideal in weight or versatility — at least, current to the time when Bay was filming Transformers 3. So in order to shoot his film in 3-D, Bay had to adjust his preferred methods: shooting 10 shots per day instead of 50, for example. And the unique risks involved were unprecedented to the director. After the first day of filming on Dark of the Moon, Bay woke up exclaiming, “I’m in love with 3-D,” only to discover that the hard drives housing that day’s worth of footage had been corrupted and his precious footage lost.

Bay, then, is much more frustrated with the limitations of current 3-D filmmaking than Cameron seems to be; practically speaking, it requires him to change the way he shoots. But judging from the approximately 10 minutes of footage shown, including the first five minutes of Dark of the Moon and an extended reel of footage, 3-D might have been one of the best things to happen to him.

Perhaps because working with 3-D required him to slow things down in terms of action, Bay’s action sequences appear to be clearer and more discernible. Extensive hand to hand robot fight sequences, robot transformations, aerial scenes, and a show-stopping set piece involving a massive robot constricting itself around a skyscraper in downtown Chicago are much easier to follow than similar scenes in the first two films. Also impressive are scenes of a squadron of military paratroopers, led by Josh Duhamel, who leap out of a plane mid-air and wind their way through a cityscape in freefall like flying squirrels caught on the wind.

More on the footage, briefly: [SPOILER ALERT] The opening first five minutes set up the premise of Dark of the Moon. A massive Star Wars-esque battle between robots is raging on Cybertron, where an escaping bot is attacked and crash-lands on the moon. Meanwhile, in 1960s America — think Michael Bay’s version of Mad Men — NASA and the government catch wind of the landing and race to put a man in space to beat the Russians to the crash site. Mixing archival footage with face-replicating CGI, Bay depicts the secret U.S. mission that we never knew about: Neil Armstrong isn’t on the moon to make one small step for man, he’s there to investigate the Transformers landing, bringing back to Earth the knowledge that we’re not alone in the galaxy. [END SPOILERS]

Reaction to the footage was mixed, though the reel drew applause. The 3-D looks fantastic — and, as Cameron himself complimented, one can’t tell the difference between native-shot footage and converted footage. (The percentages, according to Bay: 60 percent native 3-D, 15 percent digital, and the rest conversion.) “I like that you’re using 3-D aggressively,” he told Bay.

“The question is, how many millions more will it make in 3-D?” Cameron asked, turning to Bay. “I guarantee more than $30 million.”

But 3-D isn’t just an involving process, requiring complex added technical steps to shoot — it’s expensive, given the labor, equipment, and added post work involved. Bay spent seven months testing various conversion houses to find companies he trusted with the job, and made sure his fx techs got footage well in advance. The extra cost of 3-D for a film, Bay estimates, is $30 million. To Cameron, that $30 million is worth every penny. “The question is, how many millions more will it make in 3-D?” Cameron asked, turning to Bay. “I guarantee more than $30 million.”

Finally, conversation turned to the problem with the current state of 3-D filmmaking: Bad 3-D conversion jobs. “Bullshit 3-D is turning off audiences,” said Bay. Cameron agreed, citing bad 3-D as a step backwards in the struggle to get audiences back in theaters. The appeal of 3-D, he claims, is a direct solution to the threat of VOD. “But we’re abusing it,” he said, blaming studios for rushing through the time-consuming process of fine-tuning the 3-D treatment.

Another problem facing would-be 3-D filmmakers? Brightness levels in theatrical projection, another result of money-saving efforts, only controlled by theater owners. “Laser projectors are the future,” he predicted. Also in the near future, according to Cameron: Passive vs. active shutter home 3-D glasses, “tablets and laptops that don’t require glasses and are auto-stereoscopic,” and within 5 years, glasses-free 3-D television screens. We’re in the 3-D equivalent of the auto industry circa 1905, Cameron insisted.

Bay had a slightly different take: “It’s the Wild Wild West,” he said, of the current disconnect between filmmakers, exhibitors, technology, and the audience. But if Cameron has his way, it won’t be this way for long.

'The Three Musketeers' – First Photos Released

by Scott Roxborough

Courtesy of Constantin Film

See Milla Jovovich, Ray Stevenson, Matthew Macfadyen and Luke Evans ahead of the film’s fall release.

COLOGNE, Germany - Producer Constantin Film has released the first pictures of Paul W.S. Anderson's highly-anticipated 3-D reboot of The Three Musketeers. See his wife, Milla Jovovich, in costume as M'lady De Winter.

Musketeers stars Matthew Macfadyen, Ray Stevenson, Luke Evans and Logan Lerman as the titular swashbucklers Athos, Porthos, Athos, Aramis and D'Artagnan. Orlando Bloom plays the Duke of Buckingham, Christoph Waltz Musketeer nemesis Cardinal Richelieu and Mads Mikkelsen plays Rochefort.

Constantin will bow The Three Musketeers in Germany Sept. 1, ahead of the film's global roll out.

To watch more, visit tag

'Star Wars: Episode I' 3D Gets Theatrical Release Date From Lucasfilm, Fox

By Pamela McClintock

From: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/

Matthew Lloyd/Getty Images

George Lucas’ Industrial Light & Magic is supervising the 3D conversion.

Lucasfilm Ltd. and 20th Century Fox will release the 3D version of Star Wars: Episode I:The Phantom Menace on Feb. 10, 2012.

George Lucas’ Industrial Light & Magic is supervising the 3D conversion, with an eye for both technological considerations and artistic intentions.

Lucasfilm believes Star Wars is perfectly suited to be seen in 3D.


The Hollywood Reporter first reported that Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace would be converted to 3D.

Lucas hopes that releasing the film early in the year, outside of summer blockbuster season, will give it an open run at the box office and also set up the opportunity to sell merchandise through the balance of the year. The plan under discussion would make the release of the subsequent films in the series an annual event on the film calendar.

If the first in the series meets with success, the remaining five films would follow a year apart on comparable dates. However, depending on how the first release performs, the companies could also decide to open the subsequent entries in different spots on the calendar.

When the new special-edition version of the original three Star Wars movies were re-released in 1997, that cycle began with a re-release of Episode IV: A New Hope on Jan. 31, followed by Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back on Feb. 21 and Episode VI: Return of the Jedi on March 14.

Launching the movies during the first quarter of the year would also give Lucas Licensing the opportunity to launch new licensing programs that could run throughout the course of the year.

James Cameron Announces New Technology for 'Avatar' Sequels

From: http://fora.tv/


fora.tv — "We are going to be seeing the oceans of Pandora, and the ecosystems there. The only sweeping change between now, and when we release the second Avatar film. I want to author the film at a higher framerate... Movies are way behind, they are a century out of date!"

The 10 Best 3-D Movies And What Hollywood Can Learn From Them

By Josh, Katey, and Eric

From: http://www.cinemablend.com/


In the wake of Avatar 3-D is the next big leap and Hollywood hasn't been shy about putting everything they have into the format. Summer's over but the next few months will see even more movies released in 3-D. You'd probably better get used to wearing those glasses. Next week Piranha 3D shows up with a campy approach to the format and a few weeks later in September Resident Evil: Afterlife will take a much more technologically serious approach as it becomes one of the few movies since Avatar to use James Cameron's 3D Fusion Camera system. After riding the wave of a summer box office loaded with 3-D conversions we've talked a lot about all the ways that 3-D's been going wrong, but maybe there's something to be learned by looking back at all the times 3-D went right.

Freed from the shackles of the mostly unsuccessful blue and red glasses 3-D which spared people to death, used properly and on the right movies, 3-D can and has added something to your viewing experience. Listen up Hollywood. Here's what it looks like when 3-D is done right.


Captain EO (1986)
When it debuted at Disney parks in the 80s Captain EO was regarded as the first 4-D film because it incorporated in-theater effects like laser lights along with the 3-D elements on screen. But really, it was just 3-D with lasers. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola, the short film starred Michael Jackson as the captain of a ragtag starship crew on a mission across the stars. The story was pretty silly, and since it starred Michael Jackson, prone to a lot of singing, but the movie's special effects were stunning. Coppola's groundbreaking 3-D camera tricks were so good that those 3-D effects still hold up pretty well today. In part that's because Disney went all out when making it. Captain EO cost, on average, $1.76 million per minute to make. For that money Disney parks got the first ever 3-D movie that actually really worked in 3-D. It was so well done that more than twenty years later Captain EO continues to show at Disney's parks around the world.


Jim Henson's Muppet*Vision 3-D (1991)
Captain EO got all the attention but Michael Jackson's weird, space adventure wasn't the only 3-D movie showing at Disney's parks in the 90s. If you were lucky, maybe at some point during a trip to Disney you've stumbled into a showing of Jim Henson's Muppet*Vision 3-D. The attraction first opened at Walt Disney World and Disneyland in 1991 and it takes 3-D beyond the screen. The presentation uses actual animatronic Muppets and other real special effects to heighten the impact of the 3-D elements in the movie. At some point while you're watching it becomes nearly impossible to distinguish between what's really there in the room with you and what's being projected, and since it's the Muppets, it's a lot of fun. Muppet*Vision 3-D was the last thing ever directed by the late, great, Jim Henson. If he'd stuck around longer, it's hard not to wonder what he'd have thought of the format now… or for that matter what brilliant new ways he'd have come up with to use it.


Ghosts of the Abyss (2003)
Back in 2003 people still thought of 3-D as red and blue lenses Elmer's glued into paper frames. 3-D was still the awful, clunky, unwatchable stuff of Jaws 3-D and audiences wanted no part of that. But quietly, behind the scenes, James Cameron was working to change everything. Before he shot Avatar he started testing a new kind of 3-D on a series of underwater documentaries. This Cameron directed film was the first Disney movie produced in 3-D and, if you were one of the few who made it to an IMAX theater to see it, it blew your mind. Sure a lot of the 3-D effects were wasted on pie charts, but oh what pie charts. Graphs are a lot more interesting when they're hovering of the head of the guy in front of you. Images leaped out of the screen with stunning clarity. As Cameron's robotic cameras dove into the wreck of the Titanic, it was easy to let yourself go and feel as though you were really there. It would be more than half a decade before Cameron perfected his 3-D technique, but he laid the groundwork here, quietly, and while no one was really looking.


Superman Returns: An IMAX 3-D Experience (2006)
When it was released in 2006 an alternate version of Superman Returns called Superman Returns: An IMAX 3-D Experience was released simultaneously in IMAX theaters. It was the first live-action Hollywood movie to get a combined IMAX 3-D release, though now its commonplace. Only 20 minutes of the film were actually converted into 3-D which resulted in the admittedly annoying process of taking your 3-D glasses on and off throughout the film… but oh what a 20 minutes. Superman's bright, sharp colors and director Bryan Singer's talent for stunning visual clarity made those 20 minutes of 3-D worth the trouble. Used primarily on action sequences, 3-D made the movie's biggest moments even bigger and grander. Combined with IMAX's unmatched picture and sound quality Superman Returns delivered an, at the time, unmatched of theater experience.


Meet the Robinsons (2007)
Meet the Robinsons was a turning point for Disney. The studio's second attempt at computer animation was also their first good one. They'd been struggling, their animated movies were no longer working, and then out of nowhere suddenly Meet the Robinsons did. It helped that they had a strong story rooted in the importance of family, but visually, I'm not sure the movie would have worked without 3-D. On its own Robinsons' animation looked dated and overly simplistic but when 3-D was used to add depth, suddenly the film's unexpectedly simple landscape design became deeper and more interesting. In applying 3-D to such basic computer animation Robinsons discovered something interesting: 3-D works best when you keep it simple.


Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008)
While most movies use 3-D only to enhance what they're doing, Journey to the Center of the Earth existed solely in the service of 3-D. It was made, from the beginning, with 3-D in mind and the entire film was crafted from stem to stern with audiences wearing funny glasses as the plan. That paid off in a big way in sheer entertainment value. While the movie's story was, admittedly, a shallow, paint by numbers modern version of Jules Vernes' classic tale, the film's visual elements were such a blast that most went in and didn't care. The movie took full advantage of both the gimmicks and subtler nuances 3-D offers to delight and amaze. Journey to the Center of the Earth was the rare 3-D movie that there was literally no point in watching without 3-D. Without your glasses on, without 3-D effects, there was no movie. Maybe they didn't always get the story right but Journey knew how to get the most out of 3-D.


My Bloody Valentine (2009)
Before Hollywood started trying to promote 3D that was "subtle" and "enhanced the world of the film," My Bloody Valentine used the technology the way it was always intended-- to scare the hell of an audience by throwing things at them. I can't even tell you how many times a pickax swung perilously out over the crowd, or how many bulging eyeballs or body parts came up for our close inspection-- and that's mostly because I had to cover my eyes in terror every time it happened. I have no idea why a cheapie horror movie like My Bloody Valentine managed to do live-action 3D better than something massive like The Last Airbender, but I'd never been so happy to see real humans in the third dimension-- and then, of course, to see those real humans chopped to bits.


Coraline (2009)
As we've seen with many of the 3-D films released this year, it's often difficult to get the proper level of depth required for a positive 3-D experience with a live action movie. Henry Selick's Coraline, on the other hand, has depth to spare. Both filmed in 3-D and animated using 3-D figures, the movie actually establishes an immersive world for the audience, something that 90% of 3-D films lack. Be it expanding a tunnel into an alternate world filled with button-eyed doubles or fighting against the evil Beldam in a gigantic spider-web, Coraline was a movie experience made for 3-D. Watching it that way is like stepping inside the film's magical, stop-motion world. In Henry Selick's clay-molding hands, Coraline's 3-D experience was supremely effective.


Monsters vs. Aliens (2009)
Monsters vs. Aliens was an endearingly goofy and over-the-top spin on the classic monsters movie, and how better to honor the B-movie roots than by showing the whole thing in glorious 3D? It wasn't just that it was better to have the various laser beams and monsters flying out of the screen at you, but that even the 3D was getting in on the fun, amping up the bright colors and crazy action so that you didn't have a choice but to jump in. As one of the first DreamWorks movies conceived in 3D, MvA's action sequences took great advantage of the format, sending Ginormica skating down the streets of San Francisco with cars as roller skates, and showing off every bit of alien weaponry in sharp 3D detail. Monsters vs. Aliens was too early in the 3D trend to take advantage of enough high ticket prices to earn itself a sequel, but it still represents one of the earliest and best examples of how animation can really work with the added dimension.


Avatar (2009)
James Cameron began developing Avatar in 1994 and much of the time between then and its 2009 release was spent developing the movie's groundbreaking 3-D effects. Live action elements were shot entirely on the 3-D Fusion Camera System and that worked. But much of the reason the film's 3-D succeeds is that 60% of the movie's scenes contain no live action elements and were done using photorealistic computer generated images created using a new kind of virtual camera system for motion capture. Under Cameron's direction 3-D is used to give the Pandoran jungles depth or to make seed pods float out over the heads of the audience, and at times what's happening on screen feels utterly real. Since its release Avatar has become the gold-standard in 3-D filmmaking, and if you're serious about making a 3-D movie, then you'll do it the Avatar way.

The First IMAX 3D Porn Movie Is Here (Yes, IMAX 3D Porn)

From: http://gizmodo.com/

I can understand 3D porn movies at home, but IMAX 3D porn? Who wants to sit through two hours of explicit 60-foot tall 3D sex scenes, no matter how engrossing the plot could be? With other people around, I mean.

But that's exactly what Stephen Shiu is proposing for his 3-D Sex & Zen: Extreme Ecstasy, the first IMAX 3D pornographic film. An erotic fantasia set in a subterranean sex lair from ancient china. It's based on a classic Chinese erotic story called The Carnal Prayer Mat, the tale of a man who meets a duke that introduces him to a world of luxurious orgies.

The director says that the $3 million film, which is being produced in Hong Kong using IMAX cameras, will be explicit:

The sex scenes are explicit and sometimes violent, but the main theme of the story is love. There will be many close-ups. It will look as if the actors are only a few centimeters from the audience.

He claims that people don't want "just erotica, they want some wow factor!" I think he may be right, but I don't know how many people would like to watch a gigantic penis waving in 3D a few centimeters from their faces. Anyway, at least the 3D glasses will also serve as protection.

Whatever happens with this, I really want him to set cameras in the IMAX theater, just to see the reactions of crowd. [Reuters]

Send an email to Jesus Diaz, the author of this post, at jesus@gizmodo.com.

Sharp shows 3-D touchscreen displays for mobile devices

By YURI KAGEYAMA , AP Business Writer
From http://www.physorg.com/

Enlarge

(AP) -- Sharp's latest 3-D displays deliver bright, clear imagery without the cumbersome glasses usually required for such technology. Now the bad news: They only work on a 3-inch (7.5-centimeter) screen held one foot (30 centimeters) from the viewer's face.

Sharp Corp. demonstrated liquid crystal screens Friday for mobile devices that showed 3-D animation, touch-panel screens that switched from one 3-D photo to another and a display connected to a 3-D video camera.

Movies and TVs in 3-D are no longer surprising. Sony Corp. and Pansonic Corp. of Japan, as well as South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co. and LG Electronics, already sell or are planning 3-D TVs.

The drawback until now has been the need for special glasses, which show different images to the right eye and the left eye. Sharp's 3-D technology doesn't require them because the displays are designed to shoot different images to each eye.

The technology may be applied to TVs in the future, said Executive Managing Officer Yoshisuke Hasegawa. But he acknowledged it now works better when the distance between the viewer and the screen is fixed.

The smaller displays, shown Friday, are intended for mobile devices such as cell phones, game machines and digital cameras.

The 3-D animation on the handheld screen looked like a miniature version of the 3-D animation we are used to seeing on larger TV screens, though images were less convincing than those seen in a darkened cinema.

Photos on the touch screen were less clear and even a bit blurry from certain angles, though Sharp said its latest technology does away with such "ghosting" effects.

Still, the system promises gaming and technology fans the potential for pop-up e-mail messages and taking 3-D photos of friends.

The technology is likely to show up in the next DSi portable game machine, which Nintendo Co. says will be 3-D. Sharp refused to confirm the names of companies it was supplying.

Sharp expects 3-D to replace two-dimensional displays the same way color replaced black-and-white in movies and television.

"The arrival of mobile 3-D is just around the corner," Hasegawa told reporters.

Sharp tried to sell 3-D products in the past but failed, largely because of poor image quality. This time, the Osaka-based company has made breakthroughs for displays that are twice as bright and clear as existing 3-D displays.

The displays can continue to show 3-D images when they are turned to the side, a key feature for smartphones, according to Sharp. Mass production of the 3-D LCDs is set to start in the first half of fiscal 2010, which began April 1, it said.

©2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Forget Avatar: Hubble 3D Is a Religious Experience

Posted by FredPasternack
From http://www.motherboard.tv/



In the spirit of full disclosure, I must confess at the outset a certain prejudice about Hubble 3D. I have known an astronaut who flew on shuttle missions STS-9 and STS-45. I have been at the Cape for several Shuttle launches and landings (including both the launch and tragic non-landing of STS-107, Columbia). I have sat in the shuttle simulator. I have heard Story Musgrave talk about his repair of Hubble in 1993. And, in a heartbeat, I would jump at an opportunity to be shot into space myself.

Also in the spirit of full disclosure, I have issues with what at times seems to be a gratuitous use of computer technology in the movies. Having been around for the old days of headache inducing 3-D, the current technological breakthrough is interesting. Avatar was interesting.

But, in IMAX 3-D, Hubble 3-D is a religious experience. It is hard to find fault with the 45-minute documentary that details the history of Hubble, its near abandonment, and its resurrection on more than one occasion. The IMAX format in conjunction with 3-D virtually places the viewer in the shuttle, thanks to the camera work of the astronauts and the guidance, from Earth, of director Toni Myers. Yet it’s not just the photographic technique. It’s the entire experience. It’s about being there.

The launch of STS-125 is shot from several vantage points. The visual impact of the flames and exhaust from the shuttle’s rocket engines has been photographed frequently. The experience of those images in IMAX 3-D in conjunction with the sound of those rockets captured by what the filmmakers have called ”sacrificial microphones” is, pardon the expression, awesome, as is the popping sound of the shuttle passing through maximum dynamic pressure.



After Hubble’s preventative maintenance by the crew of Atlantis, Leonardo DiCaprio takes the moviegoer for a tour of the Cosmos. Courtesy of Hubble, the telescope and virtual time machine, we get a view of the edge of the visual universe and celestial bodies whose visual emissions started their journey to Earth over 10 billion years ago, before Earth was formed. We peer through space dust to view both the destruction and creation of planets and stars. Courtesy of Hubble’s cameras – capable of rendering stars emitting light of various wavelengths that reflects their life-stages — we are presented with a far-reaching mosaic of the cosmos, an image threatening in its beauty to Van Gogh.

Hubble 3-D is a must see.

The film opens in IMAX and IMAX 3D theaters worldwide on March 19

'Spider-Man' Movie Gets Release Date And 3D Treatment

by Rick Marshall
from: http://splashpage.mtv.com/

The new, live-action "Spider-Man" movie will hit theaters July 3, 2012, filmed in 3-D and directed by "500 Days of Summer" filmmaker Marc Webb.

Sony made the release date official today, and added that the film will debut in 3-D when it premieres. Production on the project, which has yet to name an actor for the lead role, is expected to begin later this year. The studio announcement also indicated that the film's title hasn't been finalized yet — though we're pretty sure the name "Spider-Man" will be in there somewhere.

“Spider-Man is the ultimate summer movie-going experience, and we’re thrilled the filmmakers are presenting the next installment in 3D," said Jeff Blake, Chairman of Sony Pictures Worldwide Marketing & Distribution, in the statement. "Spider-Man is one of the most popular characters in the world, and we know audiences are eager and excited to discover Marc’s fantastic vision for Peter Parker and the franchise.”


The "Spider-Man" movie is based on a screenplay by James Vanderbilt. In an interview with MTV News, Webb hinted that Marvel's "Ultimate Spider-Man" series could provide source material for the new film.
While no one has been cast in the film thus far, "Percy Jackson" star Logan Lerman recently indicated that he was in talks for the role of Peter Parker previously held by Tobey Maguire. The studio has indicated that the new film will bring Spider-Man and his supporting cast back to high school, relaunching the franchise with a newer, younger set of actors.

How Regular Movies Are Converted To 3D

Now that Avatar is officially the highest grossing movie of all time, it's inevitable that studios will continue to push 3D as the new frontier of cinema. But actually filming in 3D is prohibitively expensive. Here's how they fake it.

Not many directors share James Cameron's obsession with three dimensional authenticity, and not many films have the budgets to support the directors who do. Filming in 3D requires the use of two cameras, barely offset, capturing all the action in tandem. The technology involved, and the people who know how to use it, come with a high price tag (to the tune of seven figures). So most of the 3D movies that will be coming out of Hollywood in coming months, including the two new Harry Potter films as well as Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, create the effect in post-production.

Here's the gist of it: graphic artists separate shots out into layers of depth, which can number anywhere from two layers for shots with simple shots to eight for shots with more complex compositions. Then, the objects in each layer are carefully traced, creating a topographical map of the scene. Here, the computer steps in, simulating the second camera's perspective by generating another, slightly offset image. The images in the layers closest to the viewer are offset the most, creating the illusion of things popping off the screen, while the background is only offset slightly.

The more complicated the shot, the more work must be done by hand. With Tim Burton's detailed worlds, you can bet that a whole team of artists were doing a whole lot of tracing. To read about the process in more detail, head over to Slate. [Slate's Explainer]

Send an email to Kyle VanHemert, the author of this post, at kvanhemert@gizmodo.com.

First Look at Alice in Wonderland’s Creepy Caterpillar

• By Hugh Hart

New Alice in Wonderland images of the Caterpillar, the March Hare and the Dormouse reveal more details about Tim Burton’s upcoming reboot of Lewis Carroll’s 19th-century tale.

Alice in Wonderland, opening March 5, features Alan Rickman as the voice of The Caterpillar, pictured above. See more fresh takes on the Alice universe as seen through the eyes of Burton below. (Super Bowl viewers will see even more of Burton’s 3-D animated film when Disney unveils a new Alice teaser spot during the Feb. 6 football broadcast.)

The March Hare is costumed by Oscar-winning designer Colleen Atwood.

Helena Bonham Carter's Red Queen rules a court staffed by frogs.

Michael Sheen, who previously played Tony Blair in The Queen, gives voice to The White Rabbit.

Lewis B. Carroll's creation The Dormouse is voiced by Barbara Windsor.
Images courtesy Walt Disney Pictures

Read More http://www.wired.com/underwire/2010/01/alice-in-wonderland-caterpilla/#ixzz0eJjlwMXu

'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' coming in 3D!

By Carl DiOrio

From: http://www.heatvisionblog.com/

Warner Bros. will release the next two "Harry Potter" films in 3D, a move underscoring the post-"Avatar" rush for extra-dimensional boxoffice.

Studios executives on lots around town have been scrutinizing film slates for opportunities to expand forays into 3D releasing. Warners has been testing footage from its upcoming "Clash of the Titans" -- converted into 3D by an outside vendor -- and the tests have gone so well that execs have decided to release not only "Titans" but also the two-part "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" in 3D.

Warners refused to confirm the decisions Tuesday, but an announcement on "Titans" -- a co-production with Legendary Pictures -- is expected by week's end. Official word on the "Potter" pics also is awaited.

Conversion expenses have been coming down, so each film will cost just $5 million to change into 3D. Warners also will absorb an additional $5 million expense per pic to pay for 3D glasses for exhibitors handling the movies.

In a related move, Warners will push back the release of "Titans" one week to April 2. "Deathly Hallows: Part I" is set to unspool Nov. 19, and "Part II" is slotted for July 15, 2011.

The only previous "Potter" pic to dabble in 3D was last year's "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," which included brief footage viewable in 3D in Imax venues. It was unclear whether "Potter" author J.K. Rowling had to OK the move into the third dimension.

As for the impact on boxoffice prospects for the final two "Potter" sequels, consider the more imminent situation with "Titans."

A remake of a 1981 film starring Laurence Olivier, "Titans" previously might have been expected to fetch no more than $200 million domestically, and even that was an aggressive projection. Released in 3D, Warners figures to reap well north of $200 million, with 2007's $211 million domestic grosser "300" considered a beatable benchmark.

"Titans" in 3D also is considered a safe bet to best the $245 million in foreign coin that Warners fetched with "300."

The "Titans" move is not without risk. The installed base of 3D movie screens has been growing rapidly, but it's not sufficient to release the film entirely in 3D.

That should be less of a concern by the time the next "Potter" hits multiplexes. But execs also are quietly confident of getting enough 3D playdates for "Titans."

"I would not think it would be an issue to establish ourselves in the 3D marketplace with 'Titans,' " a studio insider said. "By sliding it back a week, we should at least have enough screens in the major markets."

Warners should secure upward of 1,000 playdates for "Titans," which will unspool a week after Paramount bows DreamWorks Animation's spring tentpole "How to Train Your Dragon."

The "Titans" move might spur further reshuffling in the spring release calendar, as its new date makes for a fifth wide opener set for Easter weekend, which historically is a solid boxoffice session but hardly one to support that many big pics.

Other wide openers set for April 2 include Fox's "Diary of a Wimpy Kid," a likely PG-rated film adapted from a book series popular with middle-schoolers; Disney's PG-rated Miley Cyrus starrer "The Last Song," adapted from a Nicholas Sparks novel; Universal's futuristic action thriller "Repo Men," starring Jude Law and Forest Whitaker; and Lionsgate's latest Tyler Perry pic, "Why Did I Get Married Too?"

Meantime, the move of "Potter" into the extra dimension could prompt other high-profile moves. Could a 3D James Bond loom?

Warners' decision with its "Potter" franchise is likely at least to prompt 3D discussions between MGM and 007 producers. But unlike Warners' incremental move with the "Potter" franchise -- going with full-on 3D only after an initial foray into partial Imax 3D -- Lion execs would be starting at square one in talks on Bond.

Still, there is the siren call of those extra-dimensional dollars -- and other 3D currencies. In addition to lusting after "Avatar"-like boxoffice, industry execs have taken note of how well 3D pics play overseas.

Warners 3D horror pic "The Final Destination" overperformed internationally this summer, and Sony's 2D "Zombieland" did less than one-fourth as well overseas as domestically a few months later.

Perhaps by no coincidence, Sony might send "Spider-Man" into the third dimension with the webslinger's next pic.

How 3-D Movie Projection Works

Wired Explains:

• By Brian X. Chen
• From http://www.wired.com/
  

Every few years you’ve probably watched a mainstream movie through a pair of glasses that make creatures, people and explosions pop out of the screen. And if you’ve bought into the massive hype, you were probably lining up this past weekend for James Cameron’s Avatar, which is screening in 3-D.

You might wonder, why can’t more movies be shown in 3-D? It would just take some post-production video rendering and a pair of stereoscopic glasses, right?

Actually, 3-D projection is a lot more complicated — and expensive — than one would think. In anticipation of Avatar, Wired.com paid a visit to Dolby Laboratories in San Francisco to learn about the history of 3-D movie technology leading up to its current state.

Remember those junky glasses, with a blue lens for one eye and a red one for the other? They were tied to a 3-D-imaging method called anaglyph that dates back to the 1950s. With this system, the images on the screen were projected with two color layers superimposed onto one another. When you put on the glasses, each eye sees a separate visual, the red-tinted image through one eye and the blue-tinted one through the other. Your visual cortex combines the views to create the representation of 3-D objects.

Though it may have been impressive at the time, early anaglyph imaging suffered from many issues. The color separation on film was very limited, and thus it was difficult to perceive details in 3-D scenes. Another frequent problem was ghosting, which happened when the image that should be appearing in your left eye would creep over to the right.

And then there’s the screen. Theaters projecting 3-D movies with the anaglyph method had to install silver screens for an ideal viewing experience. That’s because the more reflective screen helped keep the two different light signals separated.

3-D movie technology has come a long way. Anaglyph imaging has improved: Glasses now are typically red and cyan, which, when combined, can make use of all three primary colors, resulting in more realistic color perception.

RealD cinema, currently the most widely used 3-D movie system in theaters, uses circular polarization — produced by a filter in front of the projector — to beam the film onto a silver screen. The filter converts linearly polarized light into circularly polarized light by slowing down one component of the electric field. When the vertical and horizontal parts of the picture are projected onto the silver screen, the filter slows down the vertical component. This effectively makes the light appear to rotate, and it allows you to more naturally move your head without losing perception of the 3-D image. Circular polarization also eliminates the need for two projectors shooting out images in separate colors. The silver screen, in this case, helps preserve the polarization of the image.

Dolby’s 3-D system, used for some Avatar screenings, is a little different. It makes use of an exclusive filtration wheel (above) installed inside the projector in front of a 6.5-kilowatt bulb. The wheel is divided into two parts, each one filtering the projector light into different wavelengths for red, green and blue. The wheel spins rapidly — about three times per frame — so it doesn’t produce a seizure-inducing effect. The glasses that you wear contain passive lenses that only allow light waves aligned in a certain direction to pass through, separating the red, green and blue wavelengths for each eye.

The advantages of Dolby’s 3-D system? There’s no need for a silver screen, thanks to the built-in color-separation wheel and the powerful bulb right next to it, ensuring a bright picture necessary for 3-D viewing. Also, a mechanism can be adjusted inside the projector to change the projection method from reflection to refraction — meaning theaters can switch between projecting regular movies and 3-D movies.

The cons? The glasses are pricey: $27 apiece, so they’re designed to be washed and reused (as opposed to recycled). (Although, this would be considered a pro for the environment.) Altogether, a Dolby 3-D projection system costs theaters about $26,500, not including the eyewear.

Updated 9 a.m. PDT with more details explaining circular polarization.

See Also:

• April 8, 1953: Hollywood Finally Catches 3-D Fever

Photos: Jon Snyder/Wired.com, Brian X. Chen/Wired.com

Ready or not, the latest 3D technology is coming home

by Ben Drawbaugh

Now wait one second before you start on the whole "I'm not wearing any stupid looking glasses," because no matter what you say, there are more people paying extra to go 3D movies than ever and the reason is simple; it's because this isn't like the crappy 3D you saw during the Super Bowl last year -- or that our parents grew up with. No, the 3D that Sony, Panasonic, and others are promising next year is like nothing you've seen. We've come a long way since the old anaglyph red and blue glasses that come in cereal boxes, so before you knock the new technology before it's even out, click through and read about the technologies that might bring us a real 3D revolution.

3D, the basics

We have two eyes for a reason and while we've enjoyed stereo sound since-like-forever, stereoscopic images haven't quite arrived. At its core, 3D is as simple as using two cameras to capture the data that our eyes would, but it's the display part that's proven tricky. Ultimately, the technology has to find a way to present each eye with a different variation of an image, at that point our eyes and brain do the rest.

Circular polarized or active LCD shutter glasses

The one thing that hasn't changed about 3D is the need for glasses -- if you're holding out for 3D on a big screen without glasses, you're going to let this generation of 3D pass you by. The technology in the glasses varies by a lot and the main two types these days are circular polarized and active LCD shutter. Both serve the same purpose, to ensure each eye sees a different image, but in much different ways.

Circular polarized glasses are easily the most common used in 3D cinema today. If you've been to a 3D presentation of a Pixar movie, or maybe to Disney World and used what look like cheap sunglasses, you've probably tried the technology. Without going into too much detail, each lens is set to filter out different light, so for example in a polarized system like RealD's, there can either be two projectors with different polarizing filters in front of each (pictured below) or a special ZScreen which can alternate the clockwise and counterclockwise polarization for each frame. In either case, the right and left frame alternate at about 144 times per second so that each of 24 frames per second of a movie is displayed 3 times per eye.

RealD circular polarized filter in front of a projector

One of the problems with circular polarized 3D is that a special silver screen is required and some argue it can negatively affect the color accuracy. But what's worse is that most of us don't have a projector at home and so far only a few HDTVs like the ridiculously expensive JVC GD-463D10 LCD TV at $9,200 can pull off the same polarization trickery.

LCD shutter glasses

So in comes the LCD shutter glasses -- the technology itself has actually been around for some time, in fact there were eight Sega Master Systems games that worked with shutter glasses dating back to the 80's. But the technology was limited by the display technology of that era which could only show 480i at 30 frames per second, which worked out to about 15 FPS per eye in 3D -- so yeah, the flickering could make you sick.

Sega Master System shutter glasses

Basically the way shutter glasses work is each lens can be blacked out very very quickly to synchronize with a frame displayed on the HDTV. This way a different 1920 x 1080 progressive image can be shown to each eye.

Notice that the LCD shutter on the left is closed.

An IR emitter connected to the TV sends signals to the glasses to keep 'em in sync. In larger demos, multiple emitters are mounted throughout the venue to ensure all the glasses get the signal. This is obviously less than ideal for a large movie theater, but shouldn't be a problem at home.

IR emitter used in Pansonic's 3D demo

The other reason shutter glasses make sense at home is because they don't limit the viewing angles of the display -- not to mention the glasses are more expensive and someone would likely steal them from a theater. But besides these advantages, proponents argue that the colors are more accurate, there's less ghosting and smearing, and it is argued that the contrast is greater between the left and right eyes. So, you add all these reasons together and the technology should provide the most realistic and reliable 3D technology ever unleashed on consumers -- at home or anywhere else.

It's not all good though, besides the cost of the glasses and the added emitter in the TV, some say that there is added flickering, and with the shutters closing in front of your eyes, the image is dimmed a bit. Both Sony and Panasonic claim these are no longer issues in thanks to the super fast refresh rates and brightness available on the latest HDTVs.

Short Panasonic promotional video about how its 3D technology works

Sony, Samsung, Mitsubishi and Panasonic

Yes, you read that right, all four of these tech giants are pushing the same home 3D display technology. While Samsung and Mitsubishi have been demoing its DLP HDTVs with shutter glasses for-like-ever, both Sony and Panasonic have been showing LCD and Plasma (respectively) HDTVs that can display 3D HD at CES, CEDIA and other shows. In fact Sony and Panasonic promise to release the first consumer 3D capable displays next year. That last part is an important one, so listen up: both will offer HDTVs next year that will work just like any other HDTV today, but will also work with 3D. So not only are the HDTVs going to be fully backwards compatible, but supposedly the new sets won't cost much more than a normal HDTV. In fact Panasonic believes that in the next few years most of its HDTVs will be 3D ready.

XpanD LCD shutter glasses and special 3D Blu-ray player used in Panasonic's 3D demo

But why can't my current HDTV do 3D?

We know what you're thinking, you just bought a new HDTV and you want to know why it can't handle 3D. Even if it was possible to add an IR emitter to keep the shutter glasses in sync, the experience at 30 FPS per eye wouldn't be as enjoyable. And just like when the first 1080p HDTVs hit the shelves without the ability to actually accept 1080p input, the current crop of 120hz HDTVs can't actually display 120 frames per second -- only show each frame of a 60 fps signal, twice.

3D sources

Of course, 3D-capable displays don't do much without 3D content, and the good news is that most of the infrastructure needed for 3D in the home is already here thanks to HD. With the new 1.4 spec, HDMI has been updated to accomdate 3D and the first source is almost guaranteed to be Blu-ray. In fact as we speak the BDA is working on standardizing the storage of 3D movies on a Blu-ray Disc. It actually isn't nearly as hard as it sounds, because what is essentially needed is to up the spec from 1080p at 30 FPS to 1080p at 120 FPS. In fact a 50GB Blu-ray Disc has more than ample capacity to handle a 3D HD movie thanks to the wonders of video compression where only the difference of each frame is stored. So 3D movies only require about 50 percent more space, and the one thing about the new 3D Blu-ray standard that has been determined, is that every 3D Blu-ray Disc will include a 2D version of the movie.

3D camera used to broadcast a College Football game on ESPN.

This part might surprise you, but there have already been 3D broadcasts of major sporting events. Using RealD's circular polarized technology, ESPN broadcasts 3D presentations of major sporting events to theaters around the country. The most recent was the USC vs Ohio State game on September 12th, but other events like the National Championship game last year, and the Olympics before it, were beamed to theaters in 3D. And let us tell you, if you haven't seen your favorite sport in 3D, you're really missing something. In fact we wouldn't be surprised if the real killer application for 3D in the home was sports. Sure movies will be the first to be delivered thanks to the slow evolution of broadcast technology, but we still have our hopes that ESPN 3D will be next. But while we wait for CableLabs and the SCTE to hammer out the details of a 3D delivery standard, satellite subscribers in the UK appear to be on track to get a 3D channel next year.

The other 3D content that is coming eventually is 3D gaming. Sony was showing 3D games at IFA this year and there have been a number of rumors that real 3D gaming is coming to the Xbox 360. The only thing we really know for sure at this point is that Avatar will be one of the first 3D games, although no word on what technology will be used.

But not everyone can see 3D

When we say that 3D isn't for everyone, we mean it. In fact it is estimated that 4 percent of us are actually physically incapable of seeing 3D no matter what the display technology. And even worse, according to the College of Optometrists in Vision Development, "Research has shown that up to 56 percent of those 18 to 38 years of age have one or more problems with binocular vision and therefore could have difficulty seeing 3D." So if you are one of these affected, it might be time to see an opthamologist and get screened for amblyopia. And if you happen to be blind in one eye you can still watch 3D, but it'll just look normal to you -- assuming of course you have the glasses on.

Where we go from here

One thing we weren't able to learn in our quest for 3D knowledge was how compatible these different technologies are. Essentially we assume that the functional compatibility between the two main 3D display technologies described above are like the differences between LCD and Plasma -- in other words, they both connect to the same HD set-top-box and Blu-ray player -- but until the BDA announces the final details of the 3D specification there isn't really any way to know for sure. But it seems that if Blu-ray was compatible with both circular polarized and LCD shutter glasses, then certainly whatever broadcast standard or game console announced down the road would also work with both.

Conclusion

Like it or not, 3D is coming and just like HD before it, there will be plenty of technology pundits predicting its demise. The problem right now is very few have had the chance to check out the technology and if you have been lucky enough to see it, it is hard to convey how cool it is to others. On top of this, 3D has a long road ahead because most people think they have seen it because they've tried the anaglyph glasses during a Super Bowl Commercial. The other big hurdle is the whole stupid looking glasses argument -- which doesn't make that much sense since you'll be wearing them in the privacy of your own home. Now we know that the same technology lovers who read Engadget would never hate on any new technology without experiencing it first hand, but tell your friends and family that something new is coming, and no it isn't like anything else they've seen.

Imax books 'Spider-Man 4' for 2011

Action pic opening in early May slot

By Carl DiOrio

In less than 19 months, Spidey again will be slinging webs around Imax theaters.

Sony said Tuesday that "Spider-Man 4" will be released in Imax's specialty venues simultaneously with the comic book actioner's worldwide bow in conventional venues on Thursday, May 6, 2011. The scheduled opening gives the film a one-day jump on the first frame of the 2011 summer boxoffice season.

Imax also participated in the theatrical release of the past two "Spider-Man" pics.

"The 'Spider-Man' franchise has been so important to the growth of our network and fan base over the years," Imax Filmed Entertainment president Greg Foster said.

Video: How IMAX Wizards Convert Harry Potter to 3-D

• By Lewis Wallace

Get a glimpse at the proprietary 2-D-to-3-D conversion software used to transform the opening sequence of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in this video, supplied exclusively to Wired.com by IMAX.

Review:

Harry Potter Powers Through Puppy Love, Potions in Half-Blood Prince

The clip shows the process of creating Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince: An IMAX 3D Experience, the special version of the boy wizard movie that features approximately 12 minutes of 3-D footage.

“The first step is masking out objects in the scene so that we can turn those objects 3-D,” says IMAX’s Eric Robinson as he shows off the software. “The next step is, re-create the scene in 3-D so that we can generate depth information from that. Our proprietary render system generates a new image, which is offset from the original.”

The promo video also shows supposed fans gushing about how the IMAX version is a “completely different experience” from the 2-D version shown in regular theaters, which we’ll have to take on faith.

Half-Blood Prince, a bona fide blockbuster that has raked in more than $755 million worldwide since its July 15 release, is the sixth film based on British author J. K. Rowling’s unbelievably successful Harry Potter novels. It has been critically acclaimed as one of the best of the lot.

AMC theaters are running FAKE IMAX's and charging $5 extra for a slightly bigger screen.

Boycott IMAX, AMC, and Regal. Don't let them fool you.

I went with a friend of mine to see Star Trek: The IMAX Experience at the AMC Theatre in Burbank today. I drove out of my way to see the film on the large IMAX screen and paid an extra $5 for the ticket, which felt worth it at the time.

HOWEVER, we get in the theatre and its just a slightly bigger than normal screen and NOT the usual standard huge 72 ft IMAX screen. I was very upset and apparently this problem is happening all over at Regal and AMC theatres. Here’s a graphic representation of what’s happening at these “FAKE IMAX” screens:



If you don’t want the whole long story, I did some research online and found this article that explains it. Basically IMAX is whoring out their brand name and trying to trick people. These new “IMAX” theatres are really just nice digital screens with good sound, but they ARE NOT IMAX, in that they don’t have the huge 72 ft gigantic screen which people would expect. However, they still charge $5 more for tickets as they would for the regular IMAX.

REGAL, AMC, AND IMAX - YOU ARE LIARS!

Boycott them. Fuck them for taking advantage of people and charging them $5 extra. If you’re in LA, go to the Arclight from now on, and fuck the IMAX screens (fake and real).

Some people at Regal and AMC both wanted to call these screens IMAX Digital so as to differentiate it somehow from the giant IMAX screens people are used to associating with the name IMAX. Apparently IMAX doesn’t see anything wrong with duping customers like this and insisted on simply keeping it as IMAX. Well, I have a better term how about - “BULLSHIT IMAX.” Cause that’s what it is.

According to this piece, IMAX CEO, Richard Gelfond said the company only puts IMAX digital systems into multiplex auditoriums that meet certain criteria. He jokingly said, “It’s a very scientific test. It’s called the ‘wow’ factor. So if you don’t go in and go ‘wow,’ we won’t do it.” HAHAHA! REALLY FUNNY RICHARD!!!! What happens if I go in the theatre and go “This isn’t a fucking IMAX screen, I just got ripped off for $5!!” Do I get my money back?

At the AMC theatre this was my experience at guest services:

Aziz: Yes, I’d like my $5 back. I paid $5 extra for an IMAX screen and that’s not nearly as big as what I have known IMAX to be.
Guest Services: I can’t sir. Its IMAX quality picture and sound.
Aziz: But the screen isn’t big, that’s the whole reason I pay $5 more for IMAX.
Guest Services: Well sir, you watched the whole movie, you could have come out and we could have given you tickets to a different one.
Aziz: Why would I do that? I’d leave Star Trek, the movie I wanted to see and you’d give me a ticket for Ghosts of Girlfriends Past? Oh yeah that’s fair! No, you need to give me the $5 back, its the principle of it. Can I see a manager?

Manager: Sir, we can’t refund the money, you saw the whole film.
Aziz: I don’t want $15, I just want $5 cause AMC lied about IMAX.
Manager: Sir, I can give you popcorn and a drink.
Aziz: I don’t want to go home and drink a nasty soda and eat nasty ass popcorn. I want my $5 back. Its not about the money, its the principle of the matter, ITS NOT IMAX.
Manager: Sorry, I can’t do anything.
Aziz: You know what Twitter is? I have 25,000 followers, I’m tell 25,000 people you run fake IMAX’s and that they should boycott AMC.
Manager: I don’t really care sir.
Aziz: Yeah, I wouldn’t care either if I worked here, but you know you are in the wrong! You should give me $5!!
Manager: SIR, I CAN GIVE YOU POPCORN AND A SODA.
Aziz: I DON’T LIKE POPCORN AND I DON’T LIKE SODA, I WANT MY $5!!!
Manager: Ok here’s two free passes.

UPDATE: In addition to this terrible tragedy, there are also terrible things going on in Darfur. Please Google around for more info on how to help there.

REAL UPDATE: THE TWITTER THING WAS A JOKE YOU ANGRY PEOPLE IN THE COMMENTS THREADS WHO CAME OVER FROM FARK OR WHATEVER, I DIDN’T SERIOUSLY “THREATEN” A DUDE WITH TWITTER. HAHAHAHA. TAKE IT EASY. ALSO, YES, I’M AWARE DARFUR IS A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM. CHILL THE FUCK OUT!