|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The credibility of THX certification.
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 07-18-2013 09:15 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
IMAX hasn't started selling any consumer electronics products or participating with other companies to stamp the IMAX brand on their products.
Well technically IMAX allowed Universal to use the IMAX Experience on their DVD of Apollo 13. They use the DMR file and sound is tweaked from the original mix. Also they format it in 1.66.1
quote: Bobby Henderson
Still, IMAX seriously harmed their brand with their move into the digital realm.
This is where I do not agree with exactly, since IMAX went Hollywood and digital, they are doing better now than they have in a long, long, long while. In the short term, it has done them very well, they are expanding and grossing tickets sales far beyond their wildest beliefs. Long term, it is tough to say, the majority of people do not care or can't tell the difference and the young generation who have never, ever seen a 15/70 presentation will always continue to go.
Where I agree with you is that the older generation who grew up with 15/70 IMAX knows the difference. Ps: I am going to see Star Trek Into Darkness in 15/70 2D this weekend at the Niagara Falls IMAX Theatre.
quote:
By comparison, IMAX was a film and audio format, etc;.
Not exactly, IMAX is more than just a film and audio format. It is also a theatre design and layout experience as well.
quote: Bobby Henderson
This is only a theory, but I think the big move to stadium seated movie theater designs in 1995 marked the negative turning point for THX. You have the one factor of theater chains wanting to sell only one gimmick at a time. And then there's the acoustical issue of stadium seated rooms just not sounding as good as traditional seated rooms. THX was in a trend of growth before 1995. After 1995 they started going downhill.
If I recall correctly, THX was at its peak with consumers and the movie going audience during the release of Episode I Phantom Menace, we had 10 different THX locations in the Greater Toronto Area during that release.
And at that time, Famous Players did the impressive thing of certifying three locations with a combined total of 45 screens in THX.
I think THX peaked in 1999.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 07-19-2013 05:25 AM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
This is where I do not agree with exactly, since IMAX went Hollywood and digital, they are doing better now than they have in a long, long, long while. In the short term, it has done them very well, they are expanding and grossing tickets sales far beyond their wildest beliefs. Long term, it is tough to say, the majority of people do not care or can't tell the difference and the young generation who have never, ever seen a 15/70 presentation will always continue to go.
IMAX went to Hollywood long before it went digital. I do think that was a welcome change for many IMAX exhibitors back then. But then IMAX turned around and shot both its existing exhibitors and its audience in the back.
Digital IMAX doesn't distinguish itself in branding from the traditional IMAX, yet it is an entirely different experience. Customers that never have been to a real 15/70 presentation will not know any better, but there are many customers that do notice.
It did hurt their reputation amongst many moviegoers, but they choose to ignore that, in favor of their "new reputation" of being the loudest and most in-your-face screen in the theater...
I also credit IMAX for starting this whole "premium cinema" bullshit in the first place. It's not like theater chains don't know that what IMAX does with its digital installations can be easily replicated for most parts and probably at much lower costs.
In the end, it just might work for them, but that doesn't really mean that their strategy was the best. They've could easily have chosen another route, by creating a distinctive brand for their digital and 15/70 offerings.
But getting back to the IMAX/THX comparison... Maybe Digital IMAX is the closest thing to THX around right now. At least there is more consistency in there than in whatever two or three-letter premium brand some theater chain might come up with.
Every Digital IMAX theater is being built/retrofitted according to a specific, but closed set of specifications. All the equipment they use, is IMAX certified and even IMAX branded. But, unfortunately, that doesn't make it awesome in any kind of way.
There is still lots of room for a THX Mark 2. A theater specifications and certification program that matters and doesn't lock a venue into a specific format and single-way cash-drain, like IMAX does. THX really had its added value in its heyday. It usually was a sign that the theater cared about quality and IMHO, that's something that really should be brought back.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-19-2013 10:03 AM
quote: Sam D. Chavez
I'm wondering if you think the mediocre audio is inherent with stadiums, and if so, what is the mechanism is? The risers, the lack of a real back wall, other?
A theater originally built for stadium seating will have very high ceilings due to the stadium riser. That creates a much greater cubic area of air space than that of a standard sloped auditorium. The bigger, taller room is more prone to echo. Such rooms require more powerful speaker systems for proper audio coverage and need more creative acoustical wall treatment methods applied.
From what I've seen over the past 18 years since the stadium boom began, theater chains are mostly installing the same tiny surround speakers meant for standard sloped rooms and doing very little in terms of acoustical treatment to the walls and behind the screen (items mandated by THX). The end result, often, is a hollow sounding tone that reminds me more of a concert arena sound system.
In the mid 1990s some people weren't afraid to criticise stadium seated theater designs. When the seating risers took off in popularity with the crowds the critics went silent.
I remember when the AMC Grand 24 opened in Dallas during the summer of 1995. This was deemed America's first all stadium seated "megaplex." I watched Die Hard With a Vengeance there in SDDS. I didn't like how it sounded (big yet hollow tone addled with some noticeable echo). Afterward I drove a few miles east to the Casa Linda 4, a much smaller theater playing the same movie in Dolby Digital. The movie sounded significantly better there. GCC Northpark #1 was still, by far, the best sounding movie theater in Dallas even if it didn't have stadium seating.
By the way, yes, the effect of the stadium riser eliminating much of the back wall has a negative effect of the audio as well. Stage to back wall fly-by surround effects aren't nearly as satisfying. IMAX makes matters worse by sticking two big speaker enclosures in the top rear corners of the room.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Don't you think the problems you describe are more the result of the size of the room, rather than the fact that tiered seating has been implemented?
Yes, a smaller, more modest sized room won't be as prone to the problems I describe. But it doesn't take a great deal of seats for a stadium seated auditorium design to push the ceiling height up really high and add a lot of cubic volume to the room. I've seen rooms with more modest seat counts share a common ceiling height and projection booth level with much bigger adjacent auditoriums. So the smaller house inherits some of the usual audio problems and then adds some really bad keystoning issues due to the terrible angle the projector has with the screen.
I think what's needed is a far less extreme stadium slope. The angle just doesn't need to be nearly so steep. I can only guess the architects are designing the rooms this way just to impress customers.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
This is where I do not agree with exactly, since IMAX went Hollywood and digital, they are doing better now than they have in a long, long, long while.
Doing well and having integrity are two separate things. IMAX may be doing well right now, but it's only via brand worship and customers not paying any attention to details, such as the huge difference between native 15/70mm content and 2K video or the minor quality differences between IMAX digital and regular d-cinema digital.
To me, the IMAX brand means nothing without 15-perf 70mm. That's where they built their brand name. There is absolutely nothing special at all about HDTV resolution imagery thrown from 2 projectors. A theater chain can buy dual video projector systems from other vendors like Christie.
THX seemed to be doing just very well until the end of the 1990s. Then theater chains started looking for ways to cut costs after going bankrupt in that stadium seated theater building binge. THX was one of the things they saw as a luxury. So most theater chains got rid of it.
The same thing can happen to IMAX. There's hardly anything unique about an IMAX digital show. The fact theater chains like Cinemark, AMC, Regal, etc. are willing to market their own in-house premium big screen concepts is proof IMAX is ultimately vulnerable to be dropped in the very same manner as THX.
There's always the remote possibility customers will get wise to what they're paying for in premium big screen digital experiences versus that of a standard priced theater.
The patented laser projection system IMAX plans to deploy had better be a big leap in quality over traditional 2K and 4K projectors. From my point of view, that laser projection system is their only hope for sticking around in the long term.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 07-19-2013 11:13 AM
Quite a few theaters that I talked to back in the late 90's were at a mystery as to how to educate their customers about the benefits of THX.
It's as if they wanted THX to do all the work, since they paid the money, why should they have to do anything more? Furthermore, they found that the THX branding was working too well, as customers would want to always see movies in the THX auditoriums. Since they didn't have all their auditoriums certified, the two THX auditoriums were making their other eight look bad in their customers' perception. Their response was "get rid of THX" instead of what it should have been: "we should have had all-THX."
Another factor in the decline of THX as a brand in the theatrical market was the surge of popularity in the home theater market. If you're a company, are you going to stick with an industry that wants to take shortcuts, cheat, and skimp every time it turns around, or do you want to pursue a growing industry, filled with people with disposable income that are looking for distinction in home theater equipment?
THX chased the money, and it wasn't in the commercial theatrical market. Theaters were proving that they did not care about decent presentations, and the state of things that we're at today with substandard installations branded with some variation of "X" in them proves that out. There are exceptions to that, of course, but there are very few examples of entire locations, much less every location in a chain, that demonstrate high standards of presentation.
I think the opportunity is there, but it's going to take money and effort. Not only does the structure have to be built correctly, it has to be equipped correctly, and then it has to be maintained properly. Once that is done, then the theater/chain needs to educate its customers about why its locations are better than all the others. All that takes effort and money, and how many theaters/chains are going to make that investment?
It's unfortunate that THX couldn't get the TAP program turned into a AAA ratings system for theaters. Maybe someone at THX tried to do so, and couldn't make the numbers work to make it viable. We'll probably never know.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-19-2013 04:35 PM
quote: Scott Jentsch
Quite a few theaters that I talked to back in the late 90's were at a mystery as to how to educate their customers about the benefits of THX.
The best thing any theater could have done to sell people on THX was keep their sound system (and projection) maintained in top notch working order. Instead, too many theaters deferred maintenance and/or obtained the THX certification in a sketchy manner from the start. Then games were played to keep the logo in the ads, but any customer who knew better sure as hell could tell the audio quality wasn't as good as it should be.
Theater operators could have done more to sell people on the merits of THX, but at the same time I think the THX folks should have been doing more too. They should have been making the kinds of deals IMAX and RealD are obviously making with movie studios to get their brands all over the marketing materials of many movies. Either side should have been getting into point by point specifics on what a THX certified auditorium has versus a non-THX house.
How many movie theater operators actually build a speaker baffle behind the screen by their own choice? I'm willing to bet very few do this (Mike Blakesley recently built/installed a baffle behind his theater screen). Peek behind the screen at most any multiplex and you might see the stage speakers bolted directly into an exposed cinder block wall or sitting on some rickety metal frame. A speaker baffle isn't very cheap to build and many theaters get by without it, so it's easy to see how such a thing might be eliminated in the design phase of a new theater even it is even thought about at all.
THX certified houses typically required a heavier degree of wall treatment than non-THX houses. Then there's the list of certified components. Not just any amplifer or cinema processor would be included in that list.
quote: Scott Jentsch
THX chased the money, and it wasn't in the commercial theatrical market. Theaters were proving that they did not care about decent presentations, and the state of things that we're at today with substandard installations branded with some variation of "X" in them proves that out.
The notion of a brand's image being diluted reminds me of the restaurant industry and how some companies have suffered tremendously from expanding too fast. Starbucks & Krispy Kreme immediately come to mind. Then you consider another chain that refuses to expand to fast, such as In-N-Out Burger.
In-N-Out Burger could probably have already spread across the United States and be as ubiquitous as McDonald's. But the private, family owned business refused to do that. The chain has been expanding, but only at a pace they can find manageable. In-N-Out does not franchise. They own all their stores and have their own meat patty distribution centers. None of the stores have freezers or microwaves; all the beef is fresh & never frozen. They keep very tight control of operations in order to maintain the quality at a level customers expect. That quality is a big part of the In-N-Out image.
If In-N-Out went public there is absolutely no doubt the new shareholders and board of directors would immediately start making stupid changes to water down the product quality in order to maximize their shareholder value. They would spin off the meat patty plants and probably stick freezers and microwaves in the stores to reduce food costs, make more profit and increase the stock price. They would franchise to get the chain into more markets faster to increase cash flow and raise the stock price. They would get rid of the higher wage scales In-N-Out pays to its employees. All of the changes would be for the selfish, short term motive of getting more money for the stock, higher dividends as well as big bonuses for the journeyman CEO and other journeyman executives screwing up a good thing. After a few years In-N-Out would be no better than a nearby McDonald's store. The "magic" that has created many fans of In-N-Out would be gone forever.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 07-19-2013 07:04 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
By the way, yes, the effect of the stadium riser eliminating much of the back wall has a negative effect of the audio as well. Stage to back wall fly-by surround effects aren't nearly as satisfying. IMAX makes matters worse by sticking two big speaker enclosures in the top rear corners of the room.
Shouldn't the decreased surface of the back wall even be an advantage regarding the reduction of possible standing waves?
Regarding IMAX: I don't like their speaker alignment, but I do like the fact that they use fully sized speakers for their surround. I think that many bigger theaters would sound a lot better if they reduced the actual number of surround speakers and would replace them with larger and better powered, full range 4-way speakers.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I think what's needed is a far less extreme stadium slope. The angle just doesn't need to be nearly so steep. I can only guess the architects are designing the rooms this way just to impress customers.
I know that, especially in the U.S., many theaters were built or converted with very steep stadium seating. I've never really understood why, but maybe it indeed was a way to impress people. Steep slopes usually aren't very good for legroom either. I still think stadium seating, if done right, has its merits: You can bring people closer to the screen, without hurting line of sight. People that don't want to be too close, can still decide to sit further in the back.
If you take the scope aspect ratio as basis profile of your room and you never exceed about 2/3rds of your screen height for the back row, I don't know why you should get into trouble with either surround speaker placement, keystoning issues or increased room volume, a comparable sloped floor layout would actually have more volume. And, many sloped floor theaters with balconies do have some challenging keystone issues.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Quite a few theaters that I talked to back in the late 90's were at a mystery as to how to educate their customers about the benefits of THX.
It's as if they wanted THX to do all the work, since they paid the money, why should they have to do anything more? Furthermore, they found that the THX branding was working too well, as customers would want to always see movies in the THX auditoriums
The theater can try a lot to explain THX, but how many people will really care to read it? So, why not put it right into their face?
THX could easily have created a bunch of better trailers, that explained itself a bit more. There is no need to go into technical details at all, just tell them that the owner of this theater has put a lot of efforts to bring you the best possible movie experience and WE checked it and put a seal of approval on it. How many seconds do you need to get that message across?
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Wendy's is fresh and never frozen, they have shareholders.
Surprise: In-N-Out Burger has shareholders too...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic