Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Megaplex in Sandy, Utah converting to real IMAX

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Large Format Forum » Megaplex in Sandy, Utah converting to real IMAX (Page 6)

This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Author

Topic: Megaplex in Sandy, Utah converting to real IMAX

Richard Hamilton
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1341
From: Evansville, Indiana
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 09-01-2005 01:51 AM

Mark,
You replaced the screen? I was out of the loop on that one. I only made one visit there to replace the rectifier. After that I only talked with Paul every once in awhile, so I dont know what all went on there. Any idea what they are doing with the Mega stuff?(not the sound system)
Rick

| IP: Logged

Stewart Anderson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 105
From: Sandy, Utah /United States of America
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 09-01-2005 04:33 AM

I think the screen width/height ratios are going to be different, because I think 15/70 is wider then 8/70. Also I think we are going with a silver screen and I guess that should work better with the polarized 3D.

As for the Mega 8/70, its in the hallway near the elevator and the break room. I'm not sure what lyes ahead for it though.

I knew the platters were going to be bigger than normal since we are going to run DMRs on a system that cant do change overs, but WOW [Eek!]

, those are HUGE. I cant wait to get working with this system.

From the platter systems to the projector and sound equipment, this system is amazing. [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-01-2005 05:08 AM

quote: Richard Hamilton
You replaced the screen? I was out of the loop on that one. I only made one visit there to replace the rectifier.

Yea, in fact that is the third screen in that frame!! The rolls of material that Harkness got from its vendor was not stacked properly and this damaged the vinyl material. The shipping weight in the crate on that screen was just over 2300 lbs! The damage was not readily apparent until you put light on it but then was very obvious. I also replaced all but the two "Gain" screens in the complex as well. It was quite a large job and was done when I worked at GTS, and we had limited hours during the night time to do the work. One has to think that the Harkness US branch was running at a loss that year......

In the last few years I've experienced similar problems with several Hurley screens of which one entire complex had an entire batch of bad screens. These screens were not seamed in the correct fashion and a morie pattern resulted on fast moving images. The problem was so slight on that job that the customer opted not to have us replace them. The most recent "Bad" screen we got was at a theatre in Red Lodge Montana. Hurley is replacing that screen for us free of charge but we still have to hang it...... I certainly have no complaints about having to go to Red Lidge though,its a neat place [thumbsup]

quote: Michael Coate
What I meant by "new screen" was "the complex"..."the auditorium"...not the actual material positioned on the front wall of the auditorium and on which the image is projected.

Well the complex is hardly new, its been there since the complex opened over 4 years ago..... installing a new system does not make it a new complex. The funny thing is that they tried to use the Imax "Brand name" in several ads back when it opened just because a few of the 8/70 films were originated in Imax. I think what you meant to say was the "New Imax System"........ there is a big difference. Perhaps sticking to just quoted material from other sources is a better idea than attempting to derive something from it on your own.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 09-01-2005 08:00 AM

Oh, stop with the semantics bullshit!!! You knew what I meant, Mark.

This thread is now up to six pages! I think anyone following it is up to speed on what's going on with Jordan Commons. If, on the other hand, I had been a newbie first-time film-tech poster or had initiated this thread with my last post, then I could see how someone might jump all over me and set me straight with the details on how old the Jordan Commons complex is and the history of the equipment chosen to be installed, etc.

Wasn't it obvious that the point of my post was simply to pass along some information to those following the thread that (1) the "IMAX-whatever-you-want-to-call-it" was indeed opening for business on the 2nd, and (2) identifying which IMAX films had been booked along with their showtimes. I was using the word "screen" as a euphemism. I can't believe you wouldn't "get" that! I also can't believe you think I thought the Jordan Commons was a newly-constructed complex. Jeez! [Roll Eyes]

Mark, I think you're too attached to this situation due to your involvement with the install. Piss off.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-01-2005 08:19 AM

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 09-01-2005 08:22 AM

| IP: Logged

Joseph L. Kleiman
Master Film Handler

Posts: 380
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Apr 2005

posted 09-01-2005 08:24 AM

Megaplex is stuck with the 8/70. They offered to sell it back to Megasystems, but Megasystems declined. Most likely, they'll end up hiring a third party agent to try and sell the system.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-01-2005 09:00 AM

quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
Megaplex is stuck with the 8/70. They offered to sell it back to Megasystems, but Megasystems declined. Most likely, they'll end up hiring a third party agent to try and sell the system.

They will have a VERY difficult time selling it unless they know some one in China. There is little to no interest in 8/70 any longer to begin with, the system is typically Strong and very Rube Goldbergish... you've got to see the number and size of many of the belts to believe it, There are many other 8/70 systems I know od that are for sale, especually Ballantynes, The Mega system never performed very well.... especially in the light department. Its been nicknamed "The Mother" by those that ran it.

There is also another 8/70 system for sale in SLC, a much better system in fact, that has been for sale now for over two years without a single interested party. I don't think a second or third party is going to be of much help.... I wouldn't personally sell the Mega system to anyone, not even to China!

Mark

P.S. Michael, I've been waiting for an opportune moment to yank your chain [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Richard Hamilton
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1341
From: Evansville, Indiana
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 09-02-2005 12:43 AM

Mark,
I was actually thinking of China! The amusement park I was at as 5 of these. If the price is right, I could probably talk them into a spare. [beer]

Later, Rick

| IP: Logged

Stewart Anderson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 105
From: Sandy, Utah /United States of America
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 09-04-2005 06:56 PM

I just ran a couple shifts in this new IMAX and the picture is a lot better then any other image I've seen from any other system. The image very bright and perfectly distributed over the screen. The sharpness and stability of the image is also very impressive. And its only going to get better with the new screen and some other minor changes.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 09-04-2005 07:10 PM

(now Stewie needs a new black shirt with the Commons logo on it with him standing next to that GT system, take a snap and send it in to replace his Dinosaur pict..)

Sorry, Stew, no moving 800lb prints for awhile until Paul gives you the word...lol.

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Stewart Anderson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 105
From: Sandy, Utah /United States of America
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 09-04-2005 10:18 PM

Good idea. I'll do that soon.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure how we are going to move those prints for now. I don't think our old hydraulic 70mm print mover will handle the DMRs. I heard that our maintenance crew is going to some how bulk it up and convert it to handle moving the whole platter instead of just the print. Obviously these are not the standard size platters. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think standard platters are 48 inches and on the QTRU systems with the extended platters are 72 inches.

| IP: Logged

Robert Stawiarski
Film Handler

Posts: 62
From: MW
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 09-04-2005 11:13 PM

Correct. The 48" platters are the original 60-minute ones on the QTRU, and the 72" platters are the largest available at 150-minutes. Both are capable of holding slightly more than their stated times via smaller screw in clamps or posts near the edge, as opposed to the large standard clamps. 1570.com also has a wealth of information for your new system; there's also an affiliate site that has TSBs and such, your tech can give you more information on that.

Considering your background, I am pleased you find the IMAX GT system to be the most impressive. However, I'm sure Mark will be here to dutifully defend your old system and ruin the party. [beer]

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-05-2005 12:05 AM

quote: Robert Stawiarski
However, I'm sure Mark will be here to dutifully defend your old system and ruin the party.

Hardly,
If you go back Robert and read my posts you will find that I was happy that it was a GT system they were getting. I've always considered the GT to be a ***real*** Imax projector, I've ***never*** considered the SR systems to be true Imax nor are they capable of showing how very good the Imax system can be. How good and how trouble free the LHM system really is we will see over time.... Any newly installed system always has teething problems and at least the projection managemant people at LHM(Excepting Stewart since he just recently returned there) are far more capable at properly operating the 15/70 than the management is at Thanksgiving Point.

Keep in mind that there have been a fair number of problems at the SLC Planetarium with the Imax SR system since it went in. Not to mention the problemns with DTAC in general.

quote: Richard Hamilton
If the price is right, I could probably talk them into a spare.

Yes, I am sure they will soon find out that they will be needing a spare [Big Grin]

.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Robert Stawiarski
Film Handler

Posts: 62
From: MW
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 09-05-2005 03:18 AM

Mark -- True, you have always painted the GT in a more favorable light than IMAX's other machines. However, in previous threads, you have also stated that CDC's equivalent is as good or better than anything IMAX produces, and then go on to say IMAX's optics are vastly inferior based on your experience and 'certain' techs that you talk to. Actually, let's just look in this thread, shall we?

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
CDC does indeed have a vastly superior optical system, especially when compared to the lenses being used on the SR system.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Don't forget the CDC 15/70 3D install at the Thanksgiving Point Dino Museum. Its far superior to any of the practical Imax systems in existance(are there any iMAX that are really practical?). Probably the best 3D you will ever see is at T.P. as they are dual 15kw lamps and much higher quality optics than Imax uses.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
So, yes.... I can certainly say without a doubt that the CDC system is on the average alot better than Imax's, and considerably better than the smaller SR and the forthcomming even smaller MPX system.

Sure, you bash the SR plenty in this thread alone, but you also imply that the GT has an inferior presentation to CDC as well, correct?

Given Stewart's previous experience with the CDC system and now the IMAX GT, I was just pleased to hear his testimonial that it is the best picture he has ever seen on any system, period. Since Stewart is a Chief who has ran a competitive system for months (or years?) and constantly had to watch shows, I would think this says something despite your other posts where you criticize his lack of experience.

OK, we get it, you don't like some or most of the things about IMAX. But almost every thread -- like clockwork -- you jump in and bitch about something having to do with IMAX and praise the other system. Perhaps you should create a "CDC Appreciation" thread? No wonder Adam Martin dubbed you "Mr. Anti-IMAX."

Presentation quality is separate from reliability issues due to mismanagement of TP as cited by both you and Stewart.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.