Does anyone pay attention to movie capture & reproduction "technologies"?

[52-80 19147]

I'm scanning playtimes for the new MI and its shown to be available in different places with a combination of these different systems

 

 

Isn't that comically excessive... and is any of it noticeable, or does it matter to the viewer?

In the past I only made a distinction of 2D vs 3D (no 3D, please), and non-imax vs IMAX (interpreted to mean big ass screen)

.... and wanting to watch Dunkirk on a big ass screen found out there was like 10 variants of IMAX. 

Wikipedia shows that due to cost and physical limitations, some movies are partially shot using certain IMAX systems.  Was that apparent to anybody?  Has anyone watched a full movie and though "wow, those 3 particular scenes that were done in IMAX looked spectacular".  Or is this all marketing wank?

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89625]

Saw the Tron sequel on D-Box/3D.  Would have liked more movement, but was very cool nonetheless.  Mission Impossible might be a good D-Box candidate  

Only one movie I regret not watching on IMAX - Doctor Strange.

I'm with you on 3D.  It feels like the screens are too dim.

A lot of those options are audio, and it’s always felt like a semi-scam, because the sound to me, in decent theaters, has been solid  for a long time.  I remember being impressed with DTS and Jurassic Park, but then I was young.  Regardless, we try to stick to a handful of theaters that put money into presentation, so I ignore the labels on audio/video (except I skip 3D).