Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » People are catching wise to IMAX MPX/Digital... (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   
Author Topic: People are catching wise to IMAX MPX/Digital...
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

- posted 05-13-2009 03:49 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Stephen Dalton
The version of the film projected on IMAX is different from that shown in traditional movie theaters, (Richard Gelfond, IMAX CEO) says. The resolution is increased using a process called Digital Remastering, the sound quality is enhanced, and several front rows of seating are removed to improve the viewer’s experience (read: prevent neck cramps).
Exactly how is anyone going to take a 2K digital intermediate based Hollywood movie, throw some in "digital remastering" and still expect to see more pixels of detail by feeding the file into a 2K digital projector? Why would any "digital remastering" be needed in the first place? It's freaking 2K to 2K. Not anything else.
[Roll Eyes]

The "DMR" stuff really only works when re-sampling that HDTV-quality image up to film-based output. That also brings up another problem with these articles of late regarding IMAX Digital. Hardly any of them understand the difference 15-perf 70mm projection makes in a IMAX house. The giant screen is important, but so is the giant format projector.

I remain unconvinced about the audio system side of things -mainly due to how large theater chains like AMC, Regal, etc. routinely under-equip and poorly maintain their sound systems. What's the difference with IMAX? They're doing a competent job with audio in that one auditorium and you're now expected to pay a $5+ premium for it?.

Regarding the seats, the first few rows in just about any stadium seated auditorium are largely unnecessary. In most stadium seated houses the audience gravitates to the back rows of the room, which are also the highest rows in the auditorium.

I see absolutely no relevance at all for IMAX Digital to exist. It is a stupid waste of money both for customers and movie theater managers/executives considering adding such installations.

 |  IP: Logged
Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

- posted 05-13-2009 03:51 PM      Profile for Claude S. Ayakawa   Author's Homepage   Email Claude S. Ayakawa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I have seen and loved all of the movies I saw in the original 15/70 IMAX format. With that in mind, I have no problem with the current digital format because the projected aspect ratio of commercial films in scope in a digital IMAX theatre is just about the the same size on a full 15/70 IMAX screen. I would have a problem if a digital IMAX theatre would try to show a full frame IMAX film like THE DREAN IS ALIVE or EVEREST by severely cropping picture information from the top and bottom but that is not the case with today's digital IMAX films. I do agree the new digital format should not have been introduced as a digital version of IMAX which it is not. When it comes to IMAX sound, both 15/70 IMAX and Digital IMAX sound the
same as far as I can tell.

-Claude

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

- posted 05-13-2009 04:10 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Here's the critical issue:

You're presented with a choice: 2K digital projection or IMAX branded 2K digital projection with a ticket price $5 or more higher. What will you choose?

 |  IP: Logged
Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

- posted 05-13-2009 07:16 PM      Profile for Geoff Jones   Author's Homepage   Email Geoff Jones   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Bobby Henderson
You're presented with a choice: 2K digital projection or IMAX branded 2K digital projection with a ticket price $5 or more higher. What will you choose?
If those are my only two choices, I'll wait for the BluRay and watch it on my 124" 2.4:1 screen at home.

[Smile]

 |  IP: Logged
Scott Norwood
Film God

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

- posted 05-13-2009 07:30 PM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Imax probably should have just licensed the sound system and participated in its design and installation in multiplex theatres.

Assuming that the "Imax Jr." sound system really is just as good as the "real thing," they could have just licensed that for theatres to use along with standard 35/70mm or DLP projection. If they came up with a good name for it, they could have skipped all the R&D for the digital projection system and actually had a superior product to offer to the public. I'd pay an extra $1-2/ticket to see a film in a house with an amazing sound system. I would not pay an extra $5/ticket to see an "Imax Jr." show, assuming that it is as unimpressive as everyone here seems to think it is.

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 05-13-2009 08:56 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, Film is obsolete... so like it or not this is how it's going to be!! Also, do you ever stop to think how much of those 15/70 films are actually shot with 8/70 cameras!!! Alot more than you'd care to know about... They use them for many reasons from the cameras being lighter in weight to lower negative stock costs and every other reason in between. There are also more 8/70 cameras in existance than 15/70. See... You've been cheated all along! The difference in grain between the two formats is very obvious.

The biggest problem here and one that I agree with is that IMAX has to differentiate the different systems somehow so the general public understands what they are getting for their bucks.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 593
From: London, UK
Registered: Mar 2006

- posted 05-13-2009 09:10 PM      Profile for Caleb Johnstone-Cowan   Email Caleb Johnstone-Cowan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Anyone who says they have 25,000 followers on Twitter as a threat should get escorted out the building just for being lame. It really doesn't have the same ring as "I'm gonna kick your ass" (insert your own expletives).

When I saw the pictures of the conversion at one of the Odeons I thought "wow that is a small IMAX screen" not "wow that is a big screen for a multiplex". IMAX should dump the "IMAX Digital" brand now while they can and get some good marketing consultants in to get audiences thinking the latter.

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

- posted 05-13-2009 09:39 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
They shouldn't even be calling "IMAX Digital" IMAX at all. Honestly, if they're going to kill off the film-based side of their business and cut 15/70mm based theaters adrift then they just need to change their name to something else and perhaps do like Scott suggested: sell a nice sound system.

Even on the sound issue, I think it's a bit unfair to charge movie theater customers a price premium for audio done right. Proper sound and projection should be built into the standard ticket price. Unfortunately, that's not the reality in the most commercial movie theaters.

IMAX executives will probably fight it as hard as they can on drawing clear differences between film-based IMAX theaters and the 2K digital ones. That's because most people who look closely enough at the differences will be turned off by IMAX digital and its high ticket price premium.

quote:
Well, Film is obsolete... so like it or not this is how it's going to be!!
If that turns out to be the case IMAX will die right along with film. IMAX isn't going to survive off charging a high premium for digital projection hardly any better than what a standard 2K d-cinema theater can show. If the company is going to reinvent itself as a "digital" entity they need to try a lot harder and actually offer image quality you can't get at a standard 2K digital theater or even on Blu-ray (let's face it, 2K isn't far at all from 1080p).

The only area where the IMAX digital price premium would be worth it at all is in digital 3D showings. RealD and Dolby 3D don't work well on large screen sizes, even the arguably modest screen sizes IMAX digital houses are using. Dual 2K projectors can at least do a better job there. But a $5 to $7 premium is too much. At that price, I would just choose to save a couple bucks and see the movie in RealD or Dolby 3D.

quote:
Also, do you ever stop to think how much of those 15/70 films are actually shot with 8/70 cameras!!!
Even a blow-up from 8/70mm is going to show a much more detailed image than what a 2K digital projector can throw. Hell, I'd be thrilled if a Hollywood production would shoot in 5/65mm and release that on 5/70 or 8/70 or 15/70 prints.

 |  IP: Logged
Ron Lacheur
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 650
From: British Columbia, Canada
Registered: Feb 2002

- posted 05-13-2009 10:30 PM      Profile for Ron Lacheur   Email Ron Lacheur   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Sonics did market their sound system to 35mm houses a few years ago.

It didn't last long and it was a different system than the PPS setup that is presence in most IMAX theaters.

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 05-13-2009 10:40 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Film is obsolete? [Roll Eyes] Care to bet on which will be made longer? Film or DLP?

Steve

 |  IP: Logged
John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

- posted 05-13-2009 10:56 PM      Profile for John Walsh   Email John Walsh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I've always considered IMAX to be more 'picture' than sound. Good sound is relatively easy to do nowadays. For the last ten years or so, I was hoping there would be an improvement in picture, like Iscovision or something.

If IMAX (or anyone) simply used regular 5/70 for it's "Jr." process we could cut out all this crap; I'd be willing to pay a few bucks more. But it must be acknowledged the goal of the 'new age' of projection is not to improve the picture, but to eliminate the labor, meaning projectionists.

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 05-13-2009 11:15 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: John Walsh
But it must be acknowledged the goal of the 'new age' of projection is not to improve the picture, but to eliminate the labor, meaning projectionists.
Actually thats about as untrue as a statement gets. All of the Imax Digital locations I know of have a projectionist. He may have other duties in other booths in the same complex as well but there is still a projectionist. The real motive is to get rid of the $60,000 3-D 15/70 prints, the ultra high maintainance costs, and other associated headaches with the rolling loop.

Mark

 |  IP: Logged
Tom Hayes
Film Handler

Posts: 21
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

- posted 05-14-2009 01:51 AM      Profile for Tom Hayes   Email Tom Hayes   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
>The real motive is to get rid of the $60,000 3-D 15/70 prints, the ultra high maintainance costs, and other associated headaches with the rolling loop.

And all we have to do is give up the picture quality and pay a surcharge???

IMAX Jr. needs to be labeled as such - that's all I think most people who are dissatisifed are asking.

Imax jr coul dbe "IMAX"
REAL IMAX could be claled "Super Duper IMAX" o "IMAX Classic" or "NOT BS IMAX"

When the 4K houses in town aren't charging a premium why would anyone opt for LIEMAX, IMAX JR, or whatever the small screen , low resolution digital projection IMAX is pushing?

Also, checkout http://www.liemax.com/ , prompted by Aziz's post.

 |  IP: Logged
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

- posted 05-14-2009 08:29 AM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
“IMAX did 15% of Star Trek’s total domestic box office in the whole country on only 138 screens," which is less than 2% of all movie theatres, says Gelfond. "This is compared to the earlier releases of Watchmen, where we did 12% of the box office and Monsters and Aliens, where we did around 10%. Clearly a lot of people are going back to IMAX theaters.”
This guy is an idiot and these stats are just as bad as the "3D is going to quintouple grosses" statements that Real-D makes. Since fake IMAX is replacing the largest auditoriums in a lot of high grossing complexes it stands to reason that as more auditoriums are converted "IMAX" is going to account for a larger portion of the grosses. Additionally they are charging more for those seats. It would be a pain to do but it would be interesting to go into Rentrak for another blockbuster movie and find out what percentage of the national gross each location that now has fake IMAX produced and then using seating capacity figure out roughly what percentage the "now IMAX" auditoriums contributed to the national gross. I would venture to guess it's pretty close to what "IMAX" is generating now and the only real difference is the additional charge.

If IMAX wanted to enter the digital world they needed to make it much better than non-IMAX. They needed a minimum screen size (say 80 feet) where the screen is big enough to wow people when the walk in the door. They also should have designed a proprietary 8k system using tiled (and perfectly calibrated and aligned) 4k projectors. It wouldn't have taken 4 of the really expensive 4k Sony's because the brighness needed for each tile would only be 1/4. Using more efficient compression algorithms with higher data rates they could easily have done visually lossless compression.

They could have then insisted to the studios that anything for IMAX digital would have to be produced in at least 4k and using their DMR technology they could have de-grained the film based stuff and faked 8k from it. In tandem they could be developing an IMAX 8k digital camera and encouraging studios to produce in 8k (with 4k CGI) for IMAX which could then be downrezzed to 4k for DCI and 35mm release.

Something like this could be called digital IMAX. They could have had the huge cost savings over 15/70 IMAX with picture quality that is just as good (I would think it would be very difficult to distinguish 8k digital from 15/70 film even on something shot in 15/70 if the compression was a lossless algorithm).

If they had designed this system they could have added 2 more 4k projector tiles to make the regular IMAX aspect ratio and had an 8k replacement for the "museum style" real IMAX.

The hardware cost to do this would probably be $250,000 for 2D and pretty much double to do "2 projector" 3D but they would have eliminated the $30,000 2D ($60,000 3D) prints AND created a product that the public would be very willing to pay an extra $5 for.

 |  IP: Logged
Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 05-14-2009 10:43 AM      Profile for Martin McCaffery   Author's Homepage   Email Martin McCaffery   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
“IMAX did 15% of Star Trek’s total domestic box office in the whole country on only 138 screens," ...
Opening week. Star Trek is the perfect movie to test for return viewers. We know the trekgeeks will see the movie over and over. Will they pay the surcharge, or will they opt for a "normal" screening.

There's a master's theses in there somewhere;>

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.