Originally I thought maybe this ruckus was a bit overwrought, even if it was valid.

I had seen something (Watchmen) at the Burbank location and hadn't really noticed but I was sitting close to the screen and was just there to see the movie because of the timing.

Sunday I went to see Night at the Museum: Battle for the Smithsonian (which for some reason is available only on Imax screens at U City and Burbank) but fully prepared to pay closer attention.

Foes of faux Imax are right, of course, there's absolutely no contest. Film Imax is way superior and bigger, not that I ever seriously doubted.

However, digital Imax sound is definitely better than in regular auditoriums and Imax digital picture quality may be superior to regular digital projection as well. Images were sharp, screen illumination was great and contrast was quite good. Still, I'd have to see a side by side or at least simultaneous comparison in two auditoriums to be able to say for sure about that. And I am talking about regular projection vs. digital Imax, not genuine horizontal 70 mm film Imax.

All of that said, Imax and theater operators could be a little more truthful in their marketing because it really is not the same as the Imax of "Think Big."

Some theaters do advertise it as Imax-enhanced or something like that, but in a perfect world, all movies would be projected in high-quality, in the proper full aspect ratio, in accordance with THX standards for screen illumination and sound. And they aren't.

I went to see it again this afternoon, and I don't think so. It didn't even occur to me until I read it here. I don't care one way or the other. I loved the movie because it was entertaining and emotionally satisfying.
To me, Kevin is just a bird with colorful plumage. The rainbow in the waterfall is a realistic rendering of the effect of water spray on light and maybe even through a lens.
Relax.

Interesting, and possibly valid, although the bird in UP is not the first female named Kevin I have encountered. The widow of the late newspaper editor Jim Bellows is named Kevin, and I'm sure I have come across one other but unfortunately can't recall. Likewise I have heard of women named Michael. Or would it be Michel? Unusual, maybe, but not that far-fetched. For what that's worth.

Not that I attend many Imax screenings, but I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention when I saw Monsters & Aliens at the Burbank location. Projection, screen illumination and sound were all as I expected. Maybe I noticed that the screen wasn't as big as Universal City (still 70mm film), but apart from the $5 extra I didn't have any complaints. The screen was bigger than ordinary auditoriums. I have, however, noticed some theater directories online refer to this type of Imax as "enhanced 35mm" or something like that, which is definitely a more honest approach.

Imax spent a lot of money developing a digital version, which before it was introduced I figured would be a major disk and processing hog. Since Imax's inception long ago under different management the company has always had the goal of expanding into regular cinemas, which is of course where the money is.
And the cost of 70mm prints for 3-D is exponentially higher than for regular 35mm prints. I suspect that digital Imax 3-D is more expensive and elaborate than regular 3-D but somewhat less than 70mm Imax prints.

No, I don't work for Imax but I'm probably more familiar with how they operate than the average moviegoer. The company historically has lost a LOT more money than it has made.