|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Can someone give me a primer on IMAX 15/70 vs. IMAX digital vs. digital cinema
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-31-2009 03:18 AM
quote: Fred Tucker
Sound quality in IMAX-D is improved over the 2k DLP, mainly because its an entirely new system. New speakers & amps flat out sound better than the 10 year old EAW drivers & Crown amps that were replaced. Also, sound panels were hung on the side walls (back & front wall already had panels) to help eliminate reverb & bleeding into the auditorium next door.
I disagree -- this has nothing to do with IMAX delivering better sound than any other well-designed sound system. There is nothing proprietary about any of this. In fact, eliminating reverb and bleeding should be standard in every theatre. Nothing that IMAX is offering is any better than the THX specs. They are asking people to pay extra for a good sound system....which is a rip-off. The AMC there at Sheepshead Bay where they just installed LieMax (Lie Maximum) has no better sound that any of their other auditoria which were all refurbished with newer bigger screens and complete sound systems a few years ago. Most of the screens in that plex are as big as their IMAX room. I believe one is BIGGER.
Also, I have not heard or read anything definative that says the IMAX digital versions have a different sound mix than the studios are releasing to standard digital theatres. IMAX certainly don't have more channels than what is currently used in standard soundtrack mixes or enhanced center surround mixes that are available to any exhibitor who installes EX. And by the way, when an exhibitor DOES upgrade his sound system or enlarge his screen, he doesn't charge me an extra freakin five bucks for doing his job.
quote: Fred Tucker
3.) I really believe you are getting what you pay for.
Compaired to what? Like I said, the screen size, the 2K image quality and the sound in the IMAX room in my local multiplex isn't any better than the screen size, image quaity or sound in the other digital rooms in that same cinema. And I get in the other rooms for less than they charge me for the IMAX room -- so what am I getting for what I am paying? The name? The fact that they ripped out the first four rows in the IMAX room? For that they are charging me an extra $5?! quote: Fred Tucker
So long as you sit in the front 2/3 of an auditorium you receive a full field of view from the 55' screen where before you had to sit in the front 1/2. The picture is rock steady and the bass will shake your teeth, what more can you ask for.
I can sit in whatever row gets me to fill my field of vision in ANY theatre I go by sitting where I want, and I do this at the REGULAR ticket price. I can get my gonads rattled by good subbass in ANY decent theatre and at the REGULAR ticket price. You ask what more can I ask for? I can ask for good picture and good sound at a regular ticket price and not be asked to pay a premium for a LieMax "Experience" which now isn't an experience any different that any other well-run multiplex anywhere.
And PS -- I've seen Cinerama.....and let me tell you, IMAX is no CINERAMA! (Right on Louis!)
Oh yah, one last point -- what is LieMax going to do when AMC installs 4K units in all their rooms? So at the cinema I was referring to at Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn, they will have Sony 4K projectors in all the room except the IMAX....the newly installed IMAX will still be using their double Christie 2K units? Hmmm....this Experience seems to quickly be going into the toilet! Or maybe they'll charge $5 LESS for the 2K IMAX Experience; at least that way we WILL be getting what we pay for.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-31-2009 10:20 AM
Mark, I agree -- Cinerama had a number of distractions that IMAX did away with as did Todd-AO. Each of the systems have some pitfalls and I guess you just have to pick your poison. The bizzar screen height of IMAX was always a puzzlement to me as it simply didn't follow naturally the panorama of your field of vision, and given the width of Cinerama, it seemed odd that IMAX as so square-ish. But given now what you say about how it was conceived, it makes sense as they weren't trying to mimic Cinerama or Todd-AO as I always assumed.
After my first pissing-my-pants experience with IMAX via NORTH OF SUPERIOR, the second IMAX film I saw was just as you said, a kind of multi-media show -- a variety of smaller images positioned all around the IMAX screen. I don't believe there ever was a single full-frame image on the screen at any time in that movie -- it was always multiple images. After seeing NORTH BY SUPERIOR, I remember very disappointed in this second IMAX movie, wondering where the WOW went. But it follows what you said -- it obviously was what the format was designed for -- a way to present multi-media show on a single strip of film.
There was a single line from that multi-media IMAX film that stuck in my mind all these years and which I thought was pretty profound at the time. Perhaps you folks who are IMAX aficionados will be able to identify the title by this scene: a beautiful woman is sitting at her makeup table, looking intensely at her image in the mirror, slowly running her hand over her face and either it was a voice-over or a subtitle under the picture, I can't remember which, which said: "As soon as you think you've got it all, it slowly begins to slip away." Anyone identify that IMAX film?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-31-2009 11:34 AM
ToddAo remains the best format of all time, for me. It has the wide aspect ratio, steadiness, resolution, sound...you name it, it beat its conteporaries...it even went for 30fps out of the gate...only to rebuffed back to 24fps.
What IMAX is trying to create with this LieMax theatres (MPX film based too) are the 70mm experience...the fact is, a 5/70 system would bring all of the visual advantages without the cost disadvantages of a propritary system. Yes, it will still have the cost of 70mm film but at 1/3 the cost of IMAX 15/70 but just about all of the benefits that MPX).
The problem for IMAX though is that they've always shunned 5/70 compared to their 15/70 system. However, when you are only using a wide horizontal image, you don't need the extra height that 15/70 offers.
As to the 15/70 frame...for films like "To Fly" it really worked...things were rather vertical in that movie.
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Hawkinson
Film God
Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 05-31-2009 01:31 PM
Brad asserts his unique birth defect, " I am one of those people born with two eyes, and ...".
Actually, I thought part of the POINT of Imax's height and ratio was that you basically could not see the entire screen. That is, it fills your field of view, and your peripheral vision, too. And you can turn your head some and still not see exit signs and masking and soforth.
Sure, you can debate whether this feeling of immersion is worth the cost of not being able to see the entire frame (but of course, presumably 15/70 DPs protect with this in mind, so nothing critical is happening at the edges), but I think it substantially changes the experience and is part of what makes Imax unique, and indeed, somewhat majestic.
--jhawk
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 06-17-2009 05:42 PM
quote: Mark Lensenmayer
I've seen CINERAMA. The sound system is the best I've heard because of how it was recorded...with a gang of 5 microphones, live. The overture to HOW THE WEST WAS WON sounds like the orchestra was right behind the screen.
I agree completely with that, I have always had the feeling whilst watching Cinerama films of having an orchestra behind the curved screen, amazing.
Wouldn't it be possible to recreate the best of Cinerama and avoid its problems with digital systems? I certainly prefer wide than tall, but 15/70 IMAX (filmed and projected), especially for documentaries, is an impressive system.
I honestly think that anything that is not TV friendly/compatible must be the future. With the huge amount of illegal downloading and HDTV, the best solution seems to point to creating some sort of entertaintment that does not suit small screens at all, both 15/70 IMAX and some sort of very wide 5/70 system seem possibilities. In the UK, Tower Records and Virgin have both closed down, followed by Zavvi who bought Virgin megastores. It just shows that people do not want to pay for their films. Well, the solution is to make films that just cannot be copied or if copied would be unwatchable on portable media or home TV.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-16-2009 06:37 PM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
I honestly think that anything that is not TV friendly/compatible must be the future. With the huge amount of illegal downloading and HDTV, the best solution seems to point to creating some sort of entertaintment that does not suit small screens at all, both 15/70 IMAX and some sort of very wide 5/70 system seem possibilities. In the UK, Tower Records and Virgin have both closed down, followed by Zavvi who bought Virgin megastores. It just shows that people do not want to pay for their films. Well, the solution is to make films that just cannot be copied or if copied would be unwatchable on portable media or home TV.
You're correct from the standpoint that to succeed in any business, you must differentiate. And so a presentation in the theaters which can't be achieved at home is a key to that, which was the original purpose of all the wide-screen and stereo theatrical system to compete with television.
However, we live in an era of synergies and with the large budgets that films have today and the ridiculous costs of marketing them, studios are not going to produce something that can only be played in one type of venue. Theatrical presentation does not pay the cost of most films. So TV and cable broadcast and DVD must be viable.
Having said that, there's nothing out there today that gives me the thrill of 70mm 6-track - either the original Todd-AO version or the blowups of later years with Dolby mag baby boom format. But no one is going to go out there and start shooting again with 65mm cameras (Far and Away killed that idea) - hell, it's hard to get people to shoot 4-perf Panavision.
I don't know how the industry can see its future in HD and Blu-Ray formats, yet produce movies that either have grain the size of golf balls (because they were shot 2-perf or 1.85) or are shot in HD and look like soap operas instead of cinema.
I also don't buy the argument that film and processing costs are such a factor in any of today's big-budget movies. When films have budgets in the $150 million range, the cost of film is probably less than the catering bill.
As far as Virgin and Tower are concerned, they didn't go out of business because people stopped buying DVDs (although DVD sales are in somewhat of a decline). They went out of business because of the numerous problems in the music business, which are too numerous to discuss here and as with most chains, because of debt service.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Olpin
Chop Chop!
Posts: 1852
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 07-16-2009 08:52 PM
Julio, I think Adam is right. To my knowledge, with the exception of an early demonstration, IMAX has always been 15/70. I wonder if that was a typo regarding VistaVision 35mm, as the tech details lead me to think that an IMAXHD (48fps 15/70) was used. But who knows.
Due to the high cost and relatively limited market for ride films, many were made available in multiple formats such as 8/70 (iWerks), ShowScan, 16mm (Doron SR2), and even LaserDisc (Doron SRV or Thomson Venture).
Often times the marketing from an installation featuring IMAX would get confused with installations that didn't, so much so that often times the ride operators themselves would think they were actually running the IMAX version.
EDIT: A-ha! Did some research and found that indeed, many (though not all) IMAX ridefilm systems did use twin 48fps VistaVision projectors. It seems IMAX operated a subsidiary called Ridefilm™ which operated independently of it's larger IMAX simulation attractions (such as Back To The Future).
Link
quote:
Ridefilm is a proprietary simulation theater system that places you within 18" of the screen, providing you with an entertainment experience that is more dynamic, realistic and immersive than anything else around. Ridefilm's 180º, 18-seat, wraparound screen immerses you and your peripheral vision.
SPECIFICATIONS
* 18-passenger vehicle per theater, Three rows of (5, 6 and 7 seats)
* 3 DOF (degree of freedom) motion base with patent pending orthogonal design
* Screen: 180º, spherically curved, 25' diameter (7.62m), high-gain screen. Height of 14.5' to 16.5' (4.42m to 5.03m) from floor. Gives you the sensation of being in the movies.
* Projection: 35mm, 8-perforation VistaVision® at 48 frames per second (fps), 180º fisheye lens
* Audio: Six-channel digital surround sound
* Films: run approximately five minutes
It appears that IMAX sold many of the Ridefilm™ IP and assets to SimEx.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic