Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: IMAX at the Regal Colorado Center 9 is the worst I have ever seen

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Large Format Forum » IMAX at the Regal Colorado Center 9 is the worst I have ever seen (Page 3)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Author

Topic: IMAX at the Regal Colorado Center 9 is the worst I have ever seen

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 07-25-2012 11:45 PM

personally I think it's a badly mixed film overall.

| IP: Logged

Michael Putlack
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 187
From: Fort Collins, Colorado
Registered: Sep 2011

posted 07-26-2012 11:54 AM

quote: Cameron Glendinning
The shake mentioned is in the camera work, its hard to run with an huge IMAX camera on a steadicam is my guess! And yes the cinematography does have some moody dark sequences.....

The credits had the shaking too.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-26-2012 12:45 PM

quote: Ron Funderburg
Bobby My assistant went to screening of Dark Knight Rises at the at your revered Imax at the Warren in Moore Oklahoma and he said the sound was atrocious if any sound was going on in the surrounds you couldn't hear them talk.

I haven't seen a movie on the Lie-MAX screen Warren Theaters added to the Moore 14. So I can't tell you how good/bad the sound is there.

The other "regular" theaters in the Moore 14 are all THX-certified and Dolby Digital Cinema equipped. The new Lie-MAX screen is not THX certified.

AFAIK, no IMAX-branded screen anywhere has ever met THX certification standards. I'm not a speaker expert, but from outward appearances the speaker systems often used in IMAX theaters have more resemblence to the loud, but poorer sounding giant sized enclosures used in concert venues.

| IP: Logged

Ron Funderburg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 814
From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 07-26-2012 04:39 PM

In Imax main stream movies the most disturbing thing I find (other than the sound has never measured up) is the changing of picture size. It bugs me to go from Scope format to Imax format and then jump back. My BluRay of Tron Legacy does that watching it on the screen here one those jumps just drove me to distraction! Make the freaking format consistent full screen scope or flat not all!!!!

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 07-26-2012 08:26 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
AFAIK, no IMAX-branded screen anywhere has ever met THX certification standards. I'm not a speaker expert, but from outward appearances the speaker systems often used in IMAX theaters have more resemblence to the loud, but poorer sounding giant sized enclosures used in concert venues.

Indeed. People always talk about how great IMAX sound is supposed to be. Really? It may be fine for a nature documentary but for a real movie, it definitely is not. I've never in my entire life come out of an IMAX presentation thinking "Wow, that was some good sound". Instead, if I am left with any impression, it was how large the image was. And that's only in 2D. Watch something in IMAX 3D and the image appears soooo much smaller when you put the glasses on.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-26-2012 10:30 PM

I wasn't as distracted by the aspect ratio changes in The Dark Knight as other viewers. I appreciated Christopher Nolan shooting parts of the movie in the special venue film format.

However, what I wish could have happened like since 1995 when the stadium theater building boom began: big budget movies would return to the use of 5-perf 65mm cinematography and 70mm prints. Lots of big theaters with over sized screens were built since 1995 and dozens of them had screens that were really too big for 35mm to handle. 35mm wasn't bright enough and the image being blown up so big wasn't steady enough either. The traditional 5-perf 70mm format had a big opportunity for a comeback but it never happened.

5-perf 70mm could have survived this major transition to digital. The biggest, best traditional theaters could have kept showing that kind of film format while everybody else converted to video. But with all the steps taken to digitize post production and design it mostly around HDTV resolution, it took away much of the point in originating on 65mm in the first place.

I never really took the IMAX DMR process very seriously, especially when it was being used on some movies produced on video in HDTV resolution. The Dark Knight at least had some native 15/65mm photography to do the IMAX brand some justice. Sadly, this last Batman installment could be the end of 15/70 use. After that the IMAX brand won't mean anything to me.

quote: Joe Redifer
Watch something in IMAX 3D and the image appears soooo much smaller when you put the glasses on.

Yep. That's one of the peculiar things about 3D movies. They tend to make the image look small. The more the 3D depth effect is enhanced the more tiny everything seems to look. Our sense of visual scale is tied to our perception of depth.

A 2D movie shot in native IMAX is going to look huge, especially if the imagery has very deep depth of field. Shoot some aerial footage of a big city skyline and tilt the IMAX camera downward. That can make some audience members motion sick or feel like they're going to fall out of their chair and into the screen!
[evil]

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 07-27-2012 03:13 AM

quote:
A 2D movie shot in native IMAX is going to look huge, especially if the imagery has very deep depth of field. Shoot some aerial footage of a big city skyline and tilt the IMAX camera downward. That can make some audience members motion sick or feel like they're going to fall out of their chair and into the screen!

That's because 2D actually looks more real than 3D. [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-27-2012 12:57 PM

I've told lots of people that 3-D looks better from closer up, since it fills more of your field of vision etc. I've managed to "convert" quite a few people, but some still insist that it looks better from the balcony, which is 80+ feet away from our 30' screen. I don't see how that could be, but there's no point arguing I guess.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-27-2012 02:04 PM

There are really people who like to watch 3D from the balcony? That's crazy. I agree completely that much of the effect is lost when one sits in the back of the theatre. In general, I like to sit rather close to the screen, anyway...usually around two screen heights back, which is often the first "real" row of seating in a modern stadium-style theatre (or about 1/3 back in a conventional house).

The best 3D that I have ever seen (and I am not a 3D fan, but I feel the need to give credit here) was the Imax Space Station 3D film, which I saw from the second row.

As for Dark Knight (which I have not seen and have little interest in seeing), I am sort of curious about how the shots were composed. Standard Imax shot composition does not use the rule of thirds, but rather puts the subject of greatest importance in the bottom center of the screen, and everything else just becomes peripheral. Obviously, DK was intended to be watched on conventional screens as well, and I am curious about how a compromise was reached.

Finally, I just don't get the people who don't like the Imax sound system. Maybe they have had bad experiences or there are some bad installations (or mixes), but my personal feeling is that the Imax houses that I have visited (real, 15/70 GT or dome...not Lie-Max or SR) blow away conventional theatres in sound quality. Not just in SPL, but also the feeling of power-without-distortion.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 07-27-2012 11:15 PM

Well we don't get you either, Scott! But as you pointed out, all IMAX sound systems are not equal, so you can't really say "I prefer IMAX sound to average-schmoe theater sound". No, you can only say "I prefer that sound of such-and-such an auditorium over other auditoriums, and such-and-such an auditorium just happens to be IMAX".

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 07-28-2012 12:13 AM

Did any theatre operator ever attempt to get THX certification for an IMAX theatre? I mean, when THX certification actually meant something.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 07-28-2012 05:19 AM

I doubt IMAX would ever allow that.

Also, is it unusual for IMAX operators to open the port glass as they blow out the projector during threading and then start the thing up with the glass still open? They did that at the Colorado Center 9 for whatever reason. Maybe they were using my old manager's logic of cooling off the booth.

| IP: Logged

Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 07-28-2012 10:54 AM

The advantage of 3-D in IMAX is while the scale does appear to be reduced, the hugeness of the image makes the edges of the frame meaningless. Smaller screens generally must avoid violating the "stereo window," keeping the depth of the action at a given distance. Since that rule need not apply in IMAX, the environment we're watching can extend much farther off the screen without being gimmicky.

Two totally different effects, but each valid depending upon the intent.

| IP: Logged

Dick Vaughan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1032
From: Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 07-28-2012 12:11 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
Also, is it unusual for IMAX operators to open the port glass as they blow out the projector during threading and then start the thing up with the glass still open? They did that at the Colorado Center 9 for whatever reason

Never happened in any of the 100 or more IMAX theatres I've been in.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-28-2012 12:33 PM

In addition to Hillary's point, LieMAX 3D is decidedly brighter than what you will find in what Joe has dubbed the "average-schmoe theater" so the image looks nearly as bright as a normal 2D presentation. Add to that, it has both left eye and right eye images on the screen simultaniously -- no temporal eye-straining distortion. Put that all together and the LieMAX 3d presentation is as good as the best dual film projection 3D, i.e., damn good. The 3D presentation in a LieMax theatre is hands-down the best way to see a 3D movie; so much so that I won't even bother with 3D unless it's at a LieMax.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

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.