See the other reactions on your post

It’s a 58 second video that argues the problem is the camera. I think that’s just as silly as the film vs digital debate or red vs arri or any other version of it.

Beyond the tired digital vs film discussion and practical limitations of cameras/lenses, there’s nothing particularly special about something shot “in IMAX”. A bigger format on film yields higher resolution images. On digital we can get higher resolutions with more modestly sized sensors.

It’s possible that some productions just slap on the IMAX label as branding, but properly “shot for IMAX” is actually shot in a meaningfully different way than just what camera was or wasn’t used.

For regular screens you are composing the frame. For IMAX/giant screen, the image covers the audience’s entire field of vision and so you are no longer composing the frame, you are composing for the center of the field of vision.

I’ve shot “for IMAX” and in my opinion this video glosses over a much bigger distinction than what camera is used. Shooting for IMAX requires an entirely different way of composing. So much so that we had to cover most shots twice. Once composed for regular screens and once for IMAX/giant screen.