this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2026
32 points (97.1% liked)
movies
3710 readers
892 users here now
A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
- !television@piefed.social
- !homevideo@feddit.uk
- !mediareviews@lemmy.world
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
Rules
- Be civil
- No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
- Do not spam
- Stay on topic
- These rules will evolve as this community grows
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, my first thought was studios want films in IMAX without spending the money necessary to film exclusively in IMAX.
Maybe it’s time for an industry standard for film that large so anyone can produce the equipment and film thus reducing the cost?
IMAX can’t have a patent on dimensions and aspect ratios.
Oh you poor sweet summer child... Most things branded "IMAX" are already not the 70mm high def film most people think of as "IMAX".
It's already happened. Also, yes. Yes they "can" have a copyright on the format specs. One of MANY examples of how fucking stupid the current copyright system is.
I don't think it's an IP problem just that there isn't enough demand for the cameras that shoot that format so they are expensive to use. I know imax buys up the old projectors for large format film and refurbs them. Maybe they do the same with the cameras.
If you have to go through IMAX to even use such cameras, then it absolutely is an IP problem.
IMAX could make the cameras more affordable to rent. They do not. Cinematic landlords.
Intellectual property is shorthand description for a very particular type of exclusive right. Compile enough exclusive rights and you might have a big competitive advantage that nobody else can overcome in a particular market.
But not every exclusive right is actually intellectual property. Sometimes it's just normal property, like owning a particular building that is really good for filming particular scenes in. Or owning a particular unique car that you can rent out to those who want to use it. Or it might not be property at all, like the simple right to truthfully declare that a particular movie was directed by Christopher Nolan.
IMAX's competitive moat includes intellectual property (its trademarked name, presumably a bunch of patents in its equipment), but also includes a bunch of physical things: a production line and supply chain for a very specific format of physical film, physical equipment like cameras and projectors and editing hardware/tools, etc. And some of it includes other intangible rights or legal powers (contracts, rental agreements, financial arrangements that make it hard for others to compete).
So both of you are right that IMAX keeps its competition at bay through both intellectual property and other property rights, and other financial and legal powers and relationships (like, I'm sure they work closely with these A list directors). All it it blends together into a dominant position in their niche space. Most movies just choose not to use film at all, and even a bunch of other film formats are still in use. But IMAX still stands out for their specific format.
But I don't think imax are producing the cameras they just own most of them. That's how it is with the projectors anyway. It is an IP problem if imax is stopping others from making their own cameras in that format but I think it's just the monumental cost of spinning up production lines for niche goods that is preventing that. So market forces sure, and likely imax is rent seeking but 70 mm format cameras are not their intellectual property.
gatekeeping for elite film makers instead of being an open standard for artists and auteurs
It looks like imax did add on to the 70mm standard by being a few perforations taller but 70mm from other cameras and film stock still project correctly on imax equipment.
I suppose I'm more referring to the cost, I understand all the equipment is expensive to maintain and all that but, it shouldn't be out of the reach of 99.99% of filmmakers