|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Megaplex in Sandy, Utah converting to real IMAX
|
|
|
Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene
Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 09-05-2005 10:38 AM
Well this thread has gotten silly. Hey if jordan POS commons wants to have real IMAX then thats great. Now if they can just fix the hot spots all over thier screens, and maybe install some actual COMFORTABLE chairs, then maybe I might return.
If I get off topic, it's only because I like Mark, he has done incredible work for and with me, and I trust his opinion, because it has never let me down. Now anyone can take partial bits and pieces and make it fit a personal agenda, thats great, we all do it.
Right or wrong, the point has become competely lost. People are getting pissy about it, and as far as I am concerned, jordon commons, along with the rest of larry millers theaters, is nothing but an over billed teenager controlled crap fest with no payout. I used to like it, but hey, I have the right to realize I was an idiot.
The problem with Larry Millers theaters is that they don't know crap about presentation. I don't mean to insult any current presenters there, but let's face it, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to run a projector, but it does take someone of true aristry to be able to REALLY tell what they are doing.
I have spent countless hours watching presentations that ranged from "i cant focus" to "i cant aim my optics", and of course lets not forget "whats an apature plate?"
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAUGH. There is not ONE SINGLE THEATER in the entire valley of Salt Lake City, that has a single idea of what presentation is all about. Dim images, images that don't fit the screens, badly cut apature plates, port glass that hasn't been cleaned in ages, projectionists that have no clue how to focus an image, it's all just too frustrating.
I have given up on all but one theater, and it just BARELY passes as acceptable. It is out at jordan landing, and at least thier staff is open to suggestion, and not just talking to me like I am some kind of moron. "um yeah, we focused it". I am not a retard! I can see it's not focused.
I am scared crapless to see this new Imax at commons. Considering there are only about a dozen seats in that arena that DON'T require you to throw your neck out, nice design larry, why would I want to bother? So what it's imax, who the hell cares?
Larry Miller's motto "you know this guy". Yeah I do. I have spent too much time trying to work with the management and head projectionists to even care anymore. Last conversation just before phantom menace even led me to believe they were going to fix the problems out at Gateway. They even asked me to come into the booth to show me thier progress.
Progress? What progress? The images STILL are not aligned with the screens. AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUGH!!!!
When will theater owners in this state realize that presentation is more art then science?
It isn't about what equipment you have. Take what you have and run with it. It is about what you do with what you have.
I recently went up to logan to a very old rinky dink theater to watch Land of the Dead. For thier very old and crappy equipment, they ran a top notch presentation. Image fit the screen, nice and bright, no hot spots, port glass clean, totally focused, sound balanced nicely. It was great. I haven't seen a show presented that well in salt lake since I ran a theater.
Ciao
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-05-2005 11:07 AM
Actually Robert I have measured the light on screen for the CDC with the USL meter and so can say that is is quite superior. I have technician aqiuaintances that have measured a number of Imax light levels and I also understand that some Imax reflectors have been replaced by Technilight reflectors... that is a valid indication of some of the Imax reflectors being inferior, or should we just say old designs.
quote: Robert Stawiarski
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?
Incorrect, I feel that the CDC machine is on a par and better in some aspects than the Classic Imax. I won't attend an SR equipped Imax because it doesn't offer even a glimpse what the Classic of GT equipped Imax systemn is capable of. Clearly the GT has advantages that I like for 3D.... zero to near zero image alignment error over a two projector CDC, SR or Classic system and large lamp capacity. The GT can be a nightmare in a film pile up though and can also keep a location off screen completely untill technical help arrives. While a two projector booth of either manufacture doesn't share that problem.
Also, I would HARDLY consider Stewart a "Chief" nor "Chief" material at this point in time. Strewart is a great guy but has not developed the insight, technical experience, or intuition that a Chief Proejctionist needs to have and he has far too little technical experience to know much if anything from a ***TECHNICAL*** standpoint as a chief projetionist would know. Give him about 10 to 15 years of just 15/70 experience and then you can label him an "Imax Chief Projectionist" if he lasts that long. The only ***REAL*** "chief" that I persoally know and respect is Gord McLeod, although I am sure that there are at least three or four others in the world that may also fit into his class of experience. There are very few walking on this planet with Gords insight, ability, and intuition. Anyone in the LF industry that doesn't fit his class has not EARNED the title
"Chief" as he did but were just given it by pencil pushers.
Basing the reliability of the CDC system by using T.P.(We call it Turkey Point!)as a comparison is a waste of time. T.P. has got to have the most pittiful management in the existance of any large museum and they have a miniscule budget to boot! Basing the CDC on other well run and properly managed installations is more realistic and you would find that it is easily Imax's equivelent and that it is much better in at least some ways. But then you can't claim have to ANY experience with BOTH of them can you..... so how on earth would you know....
_______________________________________
Dave....
Actually I feel more like just another head of cattle at his theatres....... Here we have a billionaire that could have the finest theatres in the area but doesn't.....
The biggest problem with LHM Theatres is the improper selection of equipment... Mainly just Strong packages! IMHO an equipment package from who ever.... Kinoton, Christie, Strong, etc. really does you no favor in return for its purchase except give you MORE added grief. Its been proven over and over that not all the equipment from just one manufacturer is necessarily the best choice for a given site and purpose. It takes a knowledgable engineer to select the proper equipment for an important site in order to end up with perfect presentation and little or no troubles. Its does amaze me that they do as well as they do with what they have, a testament to the abilities of Paul S. and team, Paul is VERY experienced.... Some large cmpany should really grab this guy up and put him in a place where his abilities can shine and show through ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif) , he is in my opinion one the very best ***CHIEF*** projectionists in the mountain states but he seems somewhat hindered from accomplishing real greatness at LHM.
At another site the installation of older TU-2000 turret based straight gate machines all running largish lamps didn't help matters either.... What on earth was their purchasing person thinking....obviously he/she didn't have a clue that these are the ***WORST*** turretts in existance nor that large lamps need curved gates! That straight gate problem could be remedied quite easily but they won't. Light levels are also VERY low on some of the screens at that location, way, way below the norm. I don't know who makes the actual purchasing decisisons there Dave but its clear they don't know what they are doing and I suspect they also order and spec the parking lot stripes, janitorial supplies, and concessions. Selection of equipment from the likes of Kinoton, Christie, and some from Strong would be far more sutible for this sort of operation and their problems would have been near zero. Presentations, light levels and screen alignment would be far above par and more than likely the very best in the area.
This all seems to go hand in hand with the food ![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif) at the attached Myan restaurant!
I would love to go in and do a TAP inspection of their screens as I doubt that very many except the THX screens would pass. I would be eating at McDonalds though as the food there is of much higher quality.
Mark
[ 09-05-2005, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gulbrandsen ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Stawiarski
Film Handler
Posts: 62
From: MW
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 09-05-2005 12:37 PM
I noticed you toned down your post quite a bit after the edit...
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Incorrect, I feel that the CDC machine is on a par and better in some aspects than the Classic Imax.
Perhaps I might be viewing this wrong, but when someone says that one product is as good in some areas and better in others, it implies it is superior, correct? You are contradicting yourself.
OK. For the sake of discussion, let's assume what you have stated so far as fact.
-T.P. is completely inept at managing a large format theatre.
-CDC's system is vastly superior to most IMAX machines, and also better than the top-of-the-line IMAX GT.
-Stewart is inept.
When a new lamp goes in, unless prints are handled extremely poorly by the operators or the screen is in poor shape, everything else should be constant and any picture quality issues are a direct reflection of either the system, prints themselves, or the technician.
Now let's look at what Stewart has said after his recent experience with the IMAX GT:
quote: Stewart Anderson
From the platter systems to the projector and sound equipment, this system is amazing.
quote: Stewart Anderson
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.
I would say Stewart is at least as capable as the general public to notice any difference in quality, yes? The fact that he said the picture was a 'lot better' than any other system seems to contradict your 'vastly superior to IMAX' theory. He has worked with CDC's best system and now IMAX's best. The management mainly affects reliability issues (i.e. the lack of UPS's led to power problems), and not picture quality of the two machines.
Either way, the fact that you have serviced this theatre as a sound tech, and now come on to a forum and have posted in numerous threads and bashed Stewart's technical skills, experience, and ability to handle high pressure situations, shows a lack of professionalism on your part. You can say you disagree with him and do so in a much more classy way and leave the personal attacks for private means; you bash Stewart almost as much as you bash IMAX, which is saying quite a bit. The fact that Stewart even comes on here to post shows some dedication on his part, without the gross negativity exuding from your large format forum posts. Although, after your edit, your bashing of Stewart was toned down somewhat. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Do I have personal experience with CDC? Nope. There are very few in the U.S., and I have my own opinions with how their system was ahem... 'engineered.' However, I don't make it a personal mission to criticize CDC at all costs. Moreover, regardless of your opinion of Stewart, I'm sure he can at least tell when a picture quality difference exists.
Stewart -- You're welcome, by the way. We won't let Mark crash our GT party. ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-05-2005 02:18 PM
quote: Robert Stawiarski
I noticed you toned down your post quite a bit after the edit...
Actually not toned down at all.... just added to and spelling corrected and added my reply to Dave.
quote: Robert Stawiarski
Perhaps I might be viewing this wrong, but when someone says that one product is as good in some areas and better in others, it implies it is superior, correct? You are contradicting yourself.
Now I its beginning to show that you really are groping!
Its typical for part of someones system, no matter what it is... car, projector, rocket, etc to have at least some superior aspects over the others design. Some other guy has a better idea or a better design of a certain part or system.. Thats what makes for competition my friend and thats also what sometimes wins sales contracts... look at Boeing VS Airbus..... Simliar sized plane but one performs better than the other in some aspects, some airlines like that aspect and other like the other guys aspect. Hence CDC performs better in some aspects and Imax in others.... What does matter though is that the CDC systems vs. Classic Imax's that I've seen LOOK better than the Imax's.
Again, I will state that the SR does not represent the pinnacle of what Imax is capable of!!
quote:
OK. For the sake of discussion, let's assume what you have stated so far as fact.
-T.P. is completely inept at managing a large format theatre.
>Absolutely correct!
-CDC's system is vastly superior to most IMAX machines, and also
better than the top-of-the-line IMAX GT.
>you said that not me...... But there are definate advantages with CDC in the locations that they have been installed at!
-Stewart is inept
>I certainly partially believe that from working with him. You can be a nice guy and still be inept. The paper clip eposode was a good example of lack of forsight and such....
quote: Robert Stawiarski
When a new lamp goes in, unless prints are handled extremely poorly by the operators or the screen is in poor shape, everything else should be constant and any picture quality issues are a direct reflection of either the system, prints themselves, or the technician.
Again, this is a prime example of the ineptitude of the management at T.P. in which they replaced lamps WITHOUT checking the on screen light with a proper meter.... This was done by me orignally, and by me on the second set of lamps along with CDC techs but never again after that second set of lamps. Stewart changed at least a couple of sets of lamps down the road.... So was Stewart inept for changing the lamps and not doing the job properly? I suppose so.... All he had to do was call me and I would have gladly brought the meter down there.....
I agree, the QTRU are much better than the Mk-1 units.
quote: Gordon McLeod
All the IMAX systems usually have a surplus of light (domes excluded as they have cross reflection issues) and I haven't heard of any technolite reflectors being put into IMAX machines though I know of several installed into the companion 35mm machine in the booth
The CDC system is the same way and has quite a surplus. We were able to read over 90% of the screen. Iwould be happy to e-mail you the readings during the week. Thensystemn at T.P. normally ran at about 12kw and still exceeded screen brightness. In fact on Friday a tech from NCS told me how they have replaced a couple of reflectors now in Imax equipment... to much improvement. I've never know this guy to BS but I would certainly like to see those installations myself!! I can say thay the Technalight stuff does work and works very well if one is willing to put up with the short gap lamps. I too was very doubtful about it until recently. I would much prefer to see it go to a metal reflector though and according to Optiflrm that could easily be done.... I just don't think Robert could afford it.
Mark
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Stawiarski
Film Handler
Posts: 62
From: MW
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 09-05-2005 03:08 PM
Mark -- You edited your latest reply again, even though it was edited soon after posting so it does not display that it was. You wrote a paragraph long rant on how I have little experience, what are my credentials, etc. I will say that I have had opportunities to work for IMAX, and have gone through their Certified Chief Projectionist training at their headquarters. Our IMAX theatre has close to nil downtime, and our presentation is constantly praised by anyone who sees it.
There was also a paragraph on how the entire optics assembly on the CDC is better than the GT, but you edited that out as well.
It is obvious you are loyal to CDC. Stewart, after having running his CDC day-to-day for years, is now an IMAX convert and believes it looks better. Let's leave it at that.
You also edited out a comment that the 'party is crashed'... It's Labor Day -- time to enjoy some nice ribeyes off the grill. The next batch of DMR releases are almost upon us so the party continues. 800 million people can't be wrong, right?
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I suppose so.... All he had to do was call me and I would have gladly brought the meter down there.....
Based on your persona on this forum, I probably would have trouble calling you as well. Talk about negative energy!
By the way, I think I should start archiving your posts just to have a reference for when you change your mind.
Stewart -- As Bob Brown (the guy with the football field for a booth ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) has said, welcome to the IMAX family.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-05-2005 03:33 PM
quote:
Mark -- You edited your latest reply again, even though it was edited soon after posting so it does not display that it was. You wrote a paragraph long rant on how I have little experience, what are my credentials, etc. I will say that I have had opportunities to work for IMAX, and have gone through their Certified Chief Projectionist training. Our IMAX theatre has close to nil downtime, and our presentation is constantly praised by anyone who sees it.
There was also a paragraph on how the entire optics assembly on the CDC is better than the GT, but you edited that out as well.
You're right on some of the and wrong on some and it was accidentally deleted... does it matter...? but now where did I say that you were inexperienced..... I only remember asking you for your Credentials....and what other fields or related education you've had that relates directly to what you do today, so I guess thats where you think I said you were inexperienced..... Well, let your credentials speak for themselves! And remember that I ALWAYS give a person the benefit of the doubt the first time around, even Stewart knows that!
So I will ask you again so you can disprove what you claim that I said....
What is your Previous background that relates to you being a "Chief Projectionist today? To me "Chief Projctionist" means that you have EXTENSIVE background in Electronics, Optics, Mechanics, Computers, machining, film handling, and a number of years in 35mm/70mm film projection as an operator. There are but a half dozen others here that can claim that. Those three or four "other guys" that I manetioned all have this sort of experience. So it would appear to me that perhaps Imax has lowered the line substantially on what it takes to become a "Chief Projectionist"... granted there are few around that could fill the bill at the level that I consider "Chief".
This saying always comes to mind when I encounter newbies or know it all's.......
Anyone can get to the top but the elevator is broken..... You have to take the stairs to the 100th floor to get there....
BTW: Stewart... hang in there and learn if you can... keep that saying in mind as it applies very well to this field. I think you can get there... I just hope it is by doing, not by just by asking. It DOES take a very long time. But keep in mind that I DO have to be honest about all of my experiences too. A good place would be to start answering things dorected at you... instead of letting someone rescue you... Not answering yourself only takes you partially back down that flight of stairs.
Mark
| 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
|
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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic