Are those lines really there in the theater?

@@DialloMoore503 i think so, they’re probably the edges of the screen

This

should be an easy fix now that they have folding screens for mobiles

Ah yes same

Ohh yeah

I’m excited! I’ve never been in a 4DX theatre and that’s where I’m going to see this!

@@joshdobbs23 lucky you i also wanted to watch it in 4dx but it's ticket is costly i can't afford it 🥲 so will watch it in 3d

@@laughingclairvoyant5201 if you would have asked me just 1 year ago I would have said the same thing. It takes time my friend, just keep working hard and I promise you it will pay off.

Was worried about seeing it in 4dx for fist time watch, saw the re-release in 4dx was so good i decided to go ahead and see the sequal in 4dx too lol gonna be a lot of water spraying haha

Were the side screens on the whole time or just during certain scenes?

thanx for sharing ur opinion sir.. it'll be helpful :) and definitely true Avatar deserves watching again and again.

@@j0nsgr8 They are only on during certain scenes and they do not look like they do in this trailer. It depends on what your cinema is like. At mine the walls are angled in way more so theres a lot of distortion at the sides. A fish eye effect.

it was cool but i wish there was more of the movie on the side screens

I too today will be seeing it again, this time with my Dad

I'm not sure tbh i would have to see them in both quality. I should but probably gonna go to the IMAX still.

imax is extra stuff vertically screenx is extra stuff horizontally

​@@helloitsokyrago ha i went to one where the "extra two" screens were in fact the walls of the cinema. I had a fire exit sign in the middle of the supporting characters face the whole time!

@@mrpepre same! There was a fire exit in im the middle of the screen x wakanda forever😂

Yeah i can agree, they can even look out of frame

Is that how it really is?

No it’s not

@@DialloMoore503 yes you can see them and they bugged the hell out of me

@@mannybernal7584 That’s a bummer. I can see that breaking the immersion.

Same. I'm annoyed by the slightest dust particles on my screen, but this, it's too much.

same with me!

It was so amazing. Seeing the Hallelujah mountains lighting the whole room was truly incredible

right!!!!!!!!!!!

You need a Hair remover

keep watching cartoons. lmao

@@yoyodude662 keep hating lmao

We had a theatre like this in Mumbai, India. It is called Imax, Worli. But a couple of years back they turned it into a standard imax size. The dome used to rotate too. It was pretty cool.

@@therealbatman7204any idea why they downgraded it? I mean it sure sounds like a downgrade. I’ve never even conceived something so cool

@@therealbatman7204 that seems cool. Would love to see that one day.

I'd say that's the next step in cinematography

I can see VR movies happening in the future. Imagine being able to see the entire environment while you watch a story play out

Wait, what? You mean the movie is not always all 3 screens?

@@DixtunBabyAngel Nope. The side screens come on only during big action segments or sequences where the characters are in the water. It sounds like a letdown but having all three screens up the entire time just wouldn’t work for certain scenes, like indoor shots. It would look weird.

yeah shame the story sucked

good eye

Where?

It's actually totally disgusting. Most of it. Just focus only on the side screens and you will see how shit it is. It's basically cardboard cut out of static or sometimes looping footage with some game engine 3d renders. Shameful.

that's because they are mat paints, that's a big mistake tho, why they decided to add mat paints and not the actual geo, nice eyes indeed

@@vojtaja4271 its meant to be for your periperal, you can't focus on all 3 screens on once. its meant to just immerse you in the movie by giving your peripheral some color/movement

Bot!

How is screenX 2D, because I'm doubting whether I'm going to watch this movie in 2D or with screenX

Was thinking the same bro that would be amazing

I’d rather imax, Dolby vision and Atmos and 4Dx

Next minute you would be throwing up

@@allmedia320 then I feel sorry for whoever is sitting in front of me😂😂😂😂😂

B l o o m p il y a 1 seconde i'd rather see it in the hemispherical giant theater oh the Avatar attraction in Disney World ANimal Kingdom

wr did u watch it in screenx bro?

Nah. I saw the last Ghostbusters in ScreenX. Neither I nor my friends thought it was worth the money. Sides are more grey and dim than the center and since the movie is shot to work on 1 screen the sides don't add much of anything. Even if this movie has things go across from one all the way to the other, I'd rather watch it in 4DX.

Which city ?

@@rakshit5944 A town in Switzerland, I doubt you would know of it :)

i recommended you to watch in imax and dolby,dolby have way better speaker while imax have the best visual. i don’t have a good experience with screen x before

So ???? cool or not ??? after empty days ... ^^

@@thx428 I will see it in IMAX 3D tomorrow for the first time. Can't fuckin wait and won't be able to sleep well now. :P

I watched it 3 times, I'm not proud of my addiction

@@tobythies7719 be proud

If you’ve ever been to a screenX you’ll know this is not true.

Nah imax is far superior.

Imax is better this just looks annoying after the first 10 mins

It's eye trickery it was never filmed this way or meant to be presented this way. This is mirrored projection. Looks maybe neat but it's not. It's a shame most you younger people never got to experience Cinemascope. It was actually better than IMAX even tbh because it was a super large WIDESCREEN. Basically IMAX but with a super long widescreen. They actually used 3 cameras to film Cinemascope movies and didn't have any splits in the screen either. This is cheap MTV generation eye trickery & 100% FAKE. And Cinemascope was 70 years ago (using way less technology) way ahead of it's time & it was still the absolute best movie going experience ever. Shame most of you all missed it. Hopefully someday some company will bring back Cinemascope and get it right. Hopefully IMAX is maybe thinking of incorporating Cinemascope into newly constructed widescreen IMAX theaters in the future. They would be smart to do that & have "IMAX Cinemascope" theaters.

@@WrestlingErnestHemingway you’re thinking of Cinerama, not CinemaScope. CinemaScope is anything between a 2.35-2.66 aspect ratio. But yes. The Cinerama Dome sounds amazing. I actually made it there twice before it closed to two different 3D movies: “Warcraft” and “Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk”. That screen is unlike any other.

It's like £20 lol

Sneak in if you can, pay for the standard cheaper ticket, look out for the employees and cameras and sneak Into the IMAX version, just know you might have to move seats if they have assigned seating. Worse case they’ll kick you out, maybe ban you, so go to a movie theater you wouldn’t mind not returning to for a while. There’s ways to movie hop.

​@@Missle1001 lol

@@Missle1001 Its not cool doing things like this! Be honest and good person!

No

@@joecola6415 yes

It’s the same as iMax, only divided by 3.

It's not that complicated in actuality. They are simply expanding the movie to cover the three screens. Which I am not sure about this way of viewing movies because it is cutting off the top and bottom of the image that you would see in regular imax and even a standard theatre. What I really don't understand is why they left gaps between the screens, no reason whatsoever. I wonder if they did it just to make it visible that there are three screens and add it as another selling point of "3 screens". Would be very interesting to see though in what it would do for a movie.

Tried ScreenX once. That will be the only time. Terrible experience, in my opinion.

try imax instead of this

@@navaneethkrishna2864 what if you don’t have IMAX within a few thousand miles of you?

@@garcsstuff6734 then I go with best 3D screen instead of 4dx/screenx

@@garcsstuff6734 Like the other guy (or gal) said, regular 3D is better than ScreenX.

Oo le Jon qui kiff 🤣🤣

We do have that in France

IMAX 3D is the way to go for this movie!

@@Kellas31 absolutely

Exactly

The eye sees less detail in the periphery and therefore helps keep the eye rested and give a sense of depth,

@@erosgritti5171 Sure, but you don’t lock your eyes in the middle when watching a movie, you move your eyes around and observe.

And you will miss out on the entire way the film was originally shot. It was actually filmed in a long widescreen format of 2.39 : 1 (theatrical ratio). Both IMAX and ScreenX CROPS out the sides of the film to "fit the screen" so your missing out on some of the movie the way it was filmed seeing it in these theaters. Just to let you know.

@@WrestlingErnestHemingway wtf i though IMAX was superior to regular

I would incorporate it to the 4DX screens. This type of room requires a lot of space and i think the 4DX could benefit from having something different outside of just the sits.

Bruh. It doesn't look this good in person. The sides are projected onto the walls and they are greyer and dimmer than the center screen. It is not worth it. Especially since most of the time nothing of any kind happens on the sides since the films are shot to work on 1 screen. Your money is better spent on 4DX.

Not at all. This is worse than a normal cinema experience.

They wont bc its a crop+strech ratio only for these cinemas, the good thing is that we gettin the imax version tho

yeah hopefully i have 32:9 screen would be nice for that

@@MLTAKOS not really, just 3 cameras with same ratio on each one, but its one big wide render.

@@Yoooooo0909 its not 3 cameras they do tho render more from both sides and since its a fully cg movie it aint a problem to do so

iMax Dome was one of the most memorable experiences I’ve ever had in a theatre I wish it was more popular

@@Jushwa will be... I've heard about space 360⁰ spherical theatre of South Korea... That's also extraordinary.....nd may be the future of films...

​@@krishnavsaikia9841 360 is too much, the dome was perfect imo. I just want my FOV covered, the 360 where you have to turn around to see things reminds me of the universal fast and furious ride, not a fan personally.

Yeah, if you're gonna show that much screen, don't limit it to the horizontal. Needs some verticality to it.

@@Jushwa according to me..The upper surface should be a dome, a slightly spherical screen in all the middle walls nd the sloor should be plain. Then It will be the perfect future cinemahall.....

IMAX is always the full original image. They do not crop the sides. Most big movies originally film some scenes with IMAX cameras (some movies are filmed in IMAX in every single scene), so a real true IMAX will give you the entire original image. That caveat is there though, many IMAXes are "lieMAX" in that they're not the full image quality or aspect ratio. You can find a Wikipedia page of all true imax screens and if a cinema that says it's IMAX isn't listed there then it's one of the slightly cropped aspect ratio and lower image quality ones. "LieMAX" is still bigger and has slightly more image than normal screens though so it's still an upgrade. IMAX with laser (or holy grail 70mm) should always be the largest image in the world. It seems screenx sometimes crops the top and bottom and sometimes the two side screens show zoomed in or otherwise adjusted/newly created imagery to fill it out. I'm not knowledgeable about it though, but I am certain that true IMAX is always the original.

@@pseudonymousbeing987 Yeah, I knew about "lieMAX," but the nearest "true" IMAX is in an entirely different state, so that's not gonna happen. I wonder if there's a way to know whether my local "lieMax" theater is cropping the image, or merely showing the full image at a lower resolution? I don't mind a lower resolution as much as missing some of the image. That makes me wonder about standard RealD 3D screenings, though, because most screens are fullscreen 3:4 aspect ratio, but show 16:9 widescreen images with black bars on top and bottom (that is, the projector shrinks the image to fit, leaving space on the top and bottom). So why wouldn't they do that with Avatar? Is Avatar 16:9 widescreen or 3:4 fullscreen?

@@kentslocum There should be a listing of the size somewhere. It was hard to find for some of my near cinemas but on Wikipedia there's usually measurements listed with the screen and you can calculate which aspect ratio they're closest too.

@@kentslocum Do you mean to ask what non IMAX screens will show? I think IMAX has exclusive rights to show their full images so everyone else only gets the standard widescreen aspect ratio

@@pseudonymousbeing987 Hmmm...I've never heard of that before. So the Blu-ray release wouldn't have the full picture? I understand the 3D being something that can't really be experienced at home right now (given the lack of 3D tvs), but it seems wrong to deprive all viewers ever of seeing the whole picture after the movie leaves cinemas. Now I'm stressed out about something that was supposed to be enjoyable!

It's not cropped. The sides are extra footage not in the standard version.

Was thinking the same thing. Look closely just on the side panels though. Low poly models, simplier animations, tracking mismatch etc. Still impressive the poor devs managed to pull it off