IMAX, 3D or both?

It is a well known fact that filmmaker George Lucas likes to tinker with his "Star Wars" films by adding new special-effects and scenes initially impossible to produce. His latest update is the 3D release of 1999's "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Meance", the critically reviled but highly profitable prequel to the original trilogy. It releases on Friday, February 10th. In the spring, James Cameron's Academy Award-winning "Titanic" will also be re-released in the third dimension along with "Wrath of the Titans", a sequel to the 2010 remake of "Clash of the Titans". Additonally, Warner Bros. Pictures will be giving "Wrath" the IMAX treatment. Both IMAX and 3D presentations are formats that filmmakers use to further immerse the audiences into the movie going experience. However, the question some movie fans have asked is: "Which is the better format to enhance a movie with?"

IMAX projection screens can be up to 60 to 70 ft. in height, while the speakers in an IMAX auditorium can produce up to 12,500 watts of sound. The higher picture resolution and extremely dynamic sound of an IMAX presentation is what truly envelopes the viewer into the movie "world". The action segments of "The Dark Knight" and "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" were shot on IMAX cameras to fill the entire IMAX projection screen. I found the results to be truly astounding as the really BIG screen maximizes the tension and epic scope of big-budget spectacles. On the other hand, 3D effects give the illusion of an added "depth" to the visuals on screen. As a result, certain images seem to "pop" out from the foreground. I personally believe CGI (computer generated images) and animated movies seem to benefit the most from the 3D format. Fantasy films like "Avatar", "Beowulf" and "Immortals" have all displayed the effectiveness of 3D images.

Of the two formats, 3D is the most critized as naysayers have complained that 3D dims the picture substantially and has no real value outside of animated movies. I personally like 3D, but feel that its most effective when its used as more of a tool of a filmmaker than a gimmick for genre films. I don't care to pay top dollar to see "Resident Evil" or "Underworld" in 3D, but Cameron's "Avatar 2" will be an event to see since the director is always striving for perfection. However, if I had to choose between the two, I'd say IMAX is the format I prefer. Even more than 3D, it brings out the drama to certain scenes that can only be possible through a larger than life screen. Watching Tom Cruise in "Mission Impossible" climb the tallest building in the world (with only one adhesive glove) on the IMAX produced a cringe-inducing sensation in my stomach. Yes, we all know he will live, but just the sight of it was slightly scary.