Jump to content

Talk:IMAX

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMAX: can we add images of inside different types of IMAX theaters?

[edit]

This article is missing images of inside the theaters. 72.219.183.137 (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing particularly notable about the inside of most IMAX theaters. Are you planning to capture a unique setup or location? --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add encyclopaedic technical specs of all IMAX venues

[edit]

I am proposing the creation of a comprehensive and detailed list of IMAX venues, which would include their crucial technical specifications. This would not be a mere directory of theaters, but an encyclopedic resource detailing screen dimensions, projection technology (e.g., 15/70mm film, Single/Dual Laser, Digital), and audio systems for each location.

This specific, technical information is exceptionally difficult for the public to source reliably. General web searches often prove fruitless or lead to incomplete and unverified data, which is a clear indication of an information gap that Wikipedia is uniquely positioned to fill.

A well-sourced and comprehensive list on this very topic did exist on Wikipedia and was a valuable resource before its deletion. An archived version demonstrates the quality and utility of what is being proposed. The existence of this archived page provides a strong, verifiable foundation to build upon, making the task of creating this list both manageable and grounded in previously accepted work.

Now, it is important to address the "Wikipedia is not a directory" guideline (WP:NOTDIR). This proposal does not advocate for a simple business listing. Rather, it suggests the creation of an encyclopedic list of notable technological installations, much like Wikipedia's detailed lists of radio telescopes, particle accelerators, or supercomputers. In these accepted lists, the technical specifications are the primary encyclopedic data of interest. Similarly, the key information here is not that a cinema exists at a certain address, but that a specific and often historically significant projection technology is housed there. The distinction between a 1.43:1 aspect ratio GT Laser screen and a standard digital screen is a crucial technical detail for film enthusiasts, researchers, and consumers alike—a detail that is central to the very definition and appeal of the IMAX brand.

This list would function similarly to other high-value encyclopedic lists on Wikipedia, such as the "List of tallest buildings" or the "List of World Heritage Sites," which provide specific, data-rich information that goes far beyond a simple directory.

By re-establishing this list, we would be providing a valuable, sought-after, and encyclopedic resource for our readers. We would be filling a clear informational void with verifiable data and enhancing the overall quality and utility of the encyclopedia. I welcome a discussion on how we can collaboratively bring this valuable resource back to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your consideration.

References: Reddit discussion stressing the public need of an encyclopaedic entry; Historical page Mborsetti (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A well-sourced and comprehensive list on this very topic did exist on Wikipedia
No it didn't. The vast majority of entries were unsourced and were unlikely ever to be sourced. To pick a random example, how do you plan to determine which variety of IMAX projector is in each of the 800+ Chinese IMAX theaters?
I recommend you find another outlet for such a list. It's not suitable for Wikipedia. Barry Wom (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMAX 3D - It is improper to refer to this as "creating an illusion of depth"

[edit]

In THIS EDIT, I had repeatedly asserted that it is improper to refer to the IMAX 3D experience as creating "the illusion of depth". I also included further info which helps explain why there are two very different approaches to implementing this technology, using active versus passive eyeglasses. And also the superlative accomplishment in the film Wings of Courage. This edit has been repeatedly reverted, first by CodeTalker, and most recently by Barry Wom. In making my edit, here is the rationale that was given:

Stereoscopic vision is not an illusion. It is how anyone with 2 working eyeballs sees, with the brain processing the parallax differences to be seen as depth. Humans have been seeing this way for countless thousands of years. Reproducing it on a projected screen does not make it illusory. The brain processes the two separate L/R images in the exact same way. We live in a world of 3-dimensional space. And stereoscopic cameras accurately capture this reality.

Both reverts gave this rationale (as originally written by CodeTalker):

A projected image has no real depth, so "illusion of depth" is accurate. The rest of these changes are unsourced.

In restoring my edit, this argument was offered:

Again, the image on a retina has no depth either. IMAX projection onto the retina is essentially the same. It is not an illusion. And all the other info is perfectly accurate. Click on Wings of Courage to verify what is stated.

I am going to restore again. The only rationale to date for deleting the other info I had added is that it is "unsourced". The Wings of Courage info is presented over on that main article. So if you're going to delete it from here, then the CONSISTENT thing to do would be to delete it from the article over there as well. And if anyone has a major issue with lack of reference considering the glasses technology info, then I would suggest that the most constructive way to proceed is to insert a "citation needed" tag.

And this position that seeing in stereoscopic depth is somehow an "illusion" is clearly faulty. In an attempt to explain more thoroughly, here I will offer an analogy...
Consider a black & white (greyscale) photo. Now compare to a color photo. Is it proper to say that:

"The color photo has created the illusion of color"?

Absolutely not. Color is a property of the world we live in. And what color film does is capture that property, and then present it to the human eyeball. The color photo, therefore, is:

a recreation of the human visual experience of color.

Likewise, when two separate images are projected onto the viewing screen, and those two images are then seen by the eyes of a person in the audience, what has just happened is that the experience of depth has been recreated for this person's brain to process. The brain processes these two Left and Right images from the screen in the exact same way that the brain processes Left and Right images when a person views objects in the world around you.

It is not "creating an illusion of depth". We do not say that normal 2-D films "create an illusion of color". I expect these same two editors will wish to revert yet again. But the proper role for us as writers of an encyclopedia is to explain. Not to mystify. 3D IMAX is not some kind of magic trick. It is not performing any illusion of any kind. The film CAPTURES these essential aspects of what actually exists in reality. A world of color and a world of depth. We live in this three-dimensional world. Our eyes have evolved to perceive these three dimensions. And the IMAX 3D system has been engineered to recreate it.

And if anyone wishes to revert the other info about the eyeglasses technology, and the Wings of Courage info, PLEASE present your rationale for doing so.

I may, or may not, return to this article. I consider the info provided above to be fully explained, and if certain editors do not understand what is being stated here now, then others can fix the issues that have been highlighted. --Concord19 (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The color analogy is not a good one, because a color image really does have color, like the object it represents. In contrast, a stereoscopic image does not have depth, unlike the object it represents, which does have real depth. On the other hand, if you were talking about something like the Fechner color effect, it would be valid to say that it produces an illusion of color, since the image itself contains no color.
But ultimately, what belongs on Wikipedia is not based on my analysis or yours, but on what reliable sources say. And there are plenty of reliable sources that say that a stereoscopic image produces an illusion of depth. Just picking a few from the first few pages of a Google search:
It is easy to find many more such examples. (And while Wikipedia is not a reliable source, the lead of our Stereoscopy article, based on reliable sources, opens with "Stereoscopy, also called stereoscopics or stereo imaging, is a technique for creating or enhancing the illusion of depth in an image by means of stereopsis for binocular vision.") You will have to produce compelling sources that explain why the terminology used in all these sources is erroneous.
Finally, disputed material on Wikipedia should be discussed to reach consensus, and I thank you for opening this discussion. However, "consensus" does not mean that one editor presents an argument that he feels is compelling, and then the discussion is over. You need to wait for other editors to weigh in on this discussion to determine consensus. Therefore I am reverting your change again until this discussion is closed. CodeTalker (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a plethora of references which support your position.
I hope you are aware that what your position means is that when you look at the world around you, that your brain is creating an "illusion of depth" by processing left & right 2D images from your left & right retinas within your left & right eyeballs.
And THAT is the position which I have highlighted as being nonsensical.
Quote "reliable sources" can be quite mistaken. This happens all the time.
Also, I see no substantial refutation from you, nor from Barry below regarding the extensive other info which was part of the edit that has been reverted here. What was done is that hard facts were added. And the justification for removing them is based on this erroneous notion that when we look at our surroundings, what we see is an illusion. I see my hands in front of me at the ends of my arms in full depth. And if I were to take a video of that using a stereoscopic camera, and view it on a system which presents separate images to my separate eyeballs, that movie is a recreation of the reality of my hands being 3D objects. NOT an illusion.
To underscore how erroneous your position is, here is a sample quote from your references:
"...effectively tricking the brain into seeing a three-dimensional scene."
Again, the brain processes the left & right 2D images in exactly the same way as is processed when looking directly at the object. The researcher who wrote that is faced with the logical extension of that statement being:
EVERYTHING you see with your two eyeballs is "effectively tricking the brain into seeing a three-dimensional scene."
It is NOT a trick. It is NOT an illusion. Your references are all mistaken.
Your (and their) position is akin to saying:
When you run your hand over sandpaper, your brain is TRICKED into feeling a rough surface.
No. What has happened is that your brain has accurately sensed the sandpaper as being rough. It is not some kind of illusion. It is sensing the real world. Just as stereoscopic vision, whether looking directly at a 3D object, or seeing it projected on a screen, is likewise a sensing that has come from the real world.
Perception is only accurately described as an illusion when the experience being perceived is NOT found in the real world. A mirage being the most ubiquitous example. Here is the thorough explanation of what an illusion is, and what it is not:
 ILLUSION
"An illusion is a distortion of the senses... illusions distort the human perception of reality..."
"A visual illusion or optical illusion is characterized by visually perceived images that are deceptive or misleading."
 (my emphasis added)
When it comes to stereoscopic vision... in BOTH the real world, and on a movie screen seen using glasses, there IS NO distortion of the senses. It is an accurate reproduction of reality. It is NOT deceptive nor misleading. Again, what is presented is simply an accurate image of the 3D world from which the images were produced from.
If you are committed to your position (and the position of your various references), then you will go into this article on Illusion and CHANGE what it says. You will change it to encompass the ACCURATE representation of reality. And in doing so, you will have WARPED the very definition of what an illusion is. That is to say, you and your references are wrong. That is NOT what the basic definition of an illusion is. Stereoscopic vision is NOT an illusion. --Concord19 (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously an illusion, as there is no actual depth involved in a 3D image. A 2D image has no depth either, but it can be converted to a 3D image to create an illusion of depth. There's no real difference. Barry Wom (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You:
"It's obviously an illusion, as there is no actual depth involved in a 3D image."
That assessment is completely erroneous. The depth involved is the depth of the three-dimensional world that we exist in.
It is not at all an illusion. It is a re-creation. All "3D" images of the real world re-create the actual depth (length-width-height) which exists in the real world. --Concord19 (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A visual illusion or optical illusion is characterized by visually perceived images that are deceptive or misleading
That's describing a 3D image. It's fooling the brain by sending offset flat images to each eye to create the illusion of depth. It's deceptive and misleading because there is no actual depth involved. Barry Wom (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IMAX&oldid=1310218598"