Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: People are catching wise to IMAX MPX/Digital...

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » People are catching wise to IMAX MPX/Digital... (Page 4)

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

Author

Topic: People are catching wise to IMAX MPX/Digital...

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 05-15-2009 02:20 PM

Came on this one a little late, but have to chime in on this one , for this is one of the on-going problems within the cinema operations in general:

quote:
Guest Services: Well sir, you watched the whole movie, you could have come out and we could have given you tickets to a different one

This one here is the all-time classic: He bitches about the screen size to CS, but the turd still watched the entire movie.

It's like buying a new car, drive it til it has a 100k miles on it, then returns it back to the dealer that he didn't like it and wants his money back..or a better car. [Eek!]

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 05-15-2009 02:29 PM

I did quite a bit of research, digging through old press releases, mining the IMAX site for real information (very little to be found there), and wading through the post by Aziz Ansari and the plethora of blog posts that it spawned, all in order to come up with a coherent article that I could write on the subject of small IMAX screens, digital IMAX, etc.

I came away with more apathy for commercial movies shown on IMAX screens than when I started, if that's possible. I also came away with the realization that, for all the fuss that is happening right now, in another week it'll be business as usual.

The IMAX logo on a show does very little to tell you what you're going to get when seeing a movie, except maybe that you know you'll be paying extra for the pleasure.

The maximum IMAX size is 117'x96' (the Sydney Australia install), but the typical size is around 72'x53'. This was confirmed by the calls and E-Mails I made to some IMAX theaters. I don't know what the screen size of the AMC Burbank IMAX is, but it must be smaller than the MPX installation in Fitchburg, Wisconsin, which is 70'x50'.

So, that blurs any distinction that could be made between IMAX and IMAX MPX theaters based solely on screen size. The example used in the lfexaminer.com article that everyone is referencing is horribly small at 58'x28' and I can see why some people would be disappointed that didn't know what they would be getting.

One thing I couldn't find was a max screen size for IMAX Digital, does anyone have that information?

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 05-15-2009 03:06 PM

quote: Scott Jentsch
with the realization that, for all the fuss that is happening right now, in another week it'll be business as usual.

Yep, it seems that one person just wants to prove a point that he's right and AMC was wrong. Yet, AMC, knowing of getting bombarded with an occasional disturbance like this, they should have just gave him what he wants and get him out the door as quickly as possible without gathering any attention from the public and worst, the media.

Our local IMAX cinema has a 58'x75' screen, which being the "SR" size of screen. We knew it was a smaller version compared to the much larger ones out there in the field, esp the one in Toronto, CA, but nobody's complaining-we're just glad to have one.

| IP: Logged

Rick Raskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Manassas Virginia
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 05-15-2009 04:07 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
The last Imax we went to was in West Yellowstone, MT. Nice theatre, but the dirt and scuff marks "moving sideways" in the picture drove me nuts.

When was that? I was there about 12 or 13 years ago and the projectionist told me then that they were having registration problems. There was sideways motion in the lower left side of the picture.

What I've concluded reading this thread is that I'd damn well call ahead before attending any local IMAX theater. Read Scott's article.

| IP: Logged

Josh Kirkhart
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 165
From: Austin/Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2001

posted 05-15-2009 10:24 PM

Believe the defining time for the Digital IMAX screens will be when the theatres go digital in all houses of a complex.
At that time the differences become pale(besides the sound system).

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 05-15-2009 11:04 PM

IMAX will actually need to step up their digital game...if AMC and Regal actually follow through on their Sony 4K plans/agreements...LIEMAX will have lower resolution than conventional cinema....schmucks.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 05-16-2009 10:52 AM

They can always take comfort in Hollywood maintaining the 2K status quo on CGI and digital intermediate work. 4K DI and CGI is still a very rare thing. And even with 4K DI, how many of those Hollywood movies actually distribute 4K resolution virtual prints?

Still, with standard theaters showing 2K and "IMAX" showing 2K on a modest sized screen why pay extra to see the "IMAX" version of it?

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 05-16-2009 01:19 PM

I dunno...I'm seeing more and more "4K" on the DI stuff...it isn't predominate yet but that sort of thing is likely to move faster than actual conversion of theatres.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 05-16-2009 02:06 PM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Yet, AMC, knowing of getting bombarded with an occasional disturbance like this, they should have just gave him what he wants and get him out the door as quickly as possible without gathering any attention from the public and worst, the media.

As noted earlier, they gave him more than what he was asking for. Instead of getting $5, he got 2 re-admit tickets (either of which would be worth more than $5 to him).

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

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

posted 05-16-2009 03:51 PM

Monte, I think you are a little hard on this guy -- sure he watched the entire movie -- that's what most people would do. You schlep out to the theatre, maybe have had to hire a babysitter, deal with parking, etc., all to see a particular film that you've been looking forward to seeing and you're disappointed that the presentation is crap. And in this case it's even worse -- you've gone SPECIFICALLY to this theatre to see a PARTICULAR size screen and presentation, and you get there only to find, after you've bought your ticket, that your not going to get what you've expected and what you thought you paid for. And worse than worse, for which you were charged extra.

You still want to see the movie and being offered tickets for another movie or for another show-time really is just as disappointing as what you're complaining about. So you sit there and watch your movie, but you are not a happy pup when you walk out. I think it's perfectly understandable that he is angry when he approaches the manager; it's also reasonable for him to be really annoyed and looking for compensation.

Many times I've sat thru a film that was out of frame or soft focus because having to leave the theatre to find a manager, especially someone who has more brains that a dust mite and will actually DO something rather than tell me "It's the print," ruins my experience. It also makes me miss 10, 15, maybe more minutes looking for this dolt so the problem can be addressed. Getting a free pass to the next show or even another movie in the future might pacify me a little at the moment, but I still go home way pissed.

I suppose this guy could have walked right out of the theatre when he saw the LIEMAX (excellent one, Steve G) joke of a screen since he was expecting a traditional IMAX monster screen and no doubt is why he sought out that theatre. But he's already made the trip; he's already paid his extra $5 and he's already inside the LIEMAX room. I certainly understand how he made the decision to watch it instead of leaving. And to be fair to him, he was only asking for the "premium" $5 bucks back, not the entire ticket price.

No, the AMC manager should have given him his measly $5 and passed that information back to AMC headquarters that claiming IMAX and not being very clear to patrons that it's not the traditional IMAX size screen is going to cause them big trouble. I don't think people will be quite as miffed if they know going in that IMAX, as their CEO states, is NOT about screen size (coulda fooled me). Evidently it's not about resolution either, eh Mr. Gelfond? Seems that now it's about the experience, you know, the experience of feeling ripped-off of $5. And news for the IMAX CEO who should get a rolling loop projector rammed up his butt -- being ripped-off is an IMAX Experience people are not going to like.

IMAX will be just like Technicolor -- the name of something no longer meaning anything special at all.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 05-16-2009 04:06 PM

quote: Frank Angel
You still want to see the movie and being offered tickets for another movie or for another show-time really is just as disappointing as what you're complaining about.

What do you mean by this? It's just as disappointing to complain about presentation as it is to get offered a free pass? I'm confused.

| IP: Logged

John Koutsoumis
Master Film Handler

Posts: 261
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 05-17-2009 08:57 PM

My thoughts on first walking into the auditorium were the same as the guy who complained. It is quite small compared to the other proper IMAX theatres.
One thing is that the screen appears to have more height than the normal screens but the screen width is nothing to get excited about. Also if the film is scope the image appears letterboxed as it does at home on your [dlp]

I saw Star Trek and the first thing to hit the screen was that IMAX countdown that boasts all the technical details (btw at the end of this countdown appears the words "THINK BIG", so IMAX digital IS a large format [Wink]

With the trailer for Night at the Museum 2 i noticed what appears as the saturation/colour been cranked a little too far with things appearing a little warmer than they should. Sound was loud compared to regular screens but the high frequencies were way out of control causing quite a headache. With a proper EQ the level could have been louder. The feature had the same problem with colour but wasn't too bad.
At the end of it I can say that for me it felt like I was watching a large Plasma screen or the like. Quite different to Bladerunner which I saw in 2k (projected via Sony 4k projector) which had more deatil but the IMAX digital had more depth to the image.

has anyone made a comparison with IMAX digital vs. 2k by viewing the same film?

Normal tickets here cost around $16 but IMAX digital is $22.
At least the image was bright and in focus and you could make out the dialog.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 05-17-2009 11:39 PM

Yeah, but $22 would go a long way toward buying a copy of the Blu-ray version.

| IP: Logged

John Koutsoumis
Master Film Handler

Posts: 261
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 05-18-2009 12:03 AM

Exactly and every day Blu-Ray discs are getting just that little bit cheaper and standard DVDs are like rock bottom if you wait just a little while after their intial release.
It's a shame that many 35mm prints are not printed at optimal quality because with good projection film has something that digital could never emulate no matter how good digital gets. But digital is where its all heading. I'm waiting for more screens here to become 2k with normal movies ( I hate current 3D movies) and then compare those to the IMAX digital.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 05-18-2009 09:20 AM

I can't help but wonder if some 35mm print runs are deliberately goofed up just to make d-cinema look better. More likely film printing labs like Technicolor are placing a lot more of their resources into virtual print distribution and not spending much on improving or even maintaining film printing setups.

35mm film projection, even done right, is already working at a disadvantage with digtal cinema since nearly all movie releases end up with a 2K digital intermediate as a finished product. The 35mm print isn't going to show anymore detail than the 2K d-cinema version. In fact, the 35mm prints may show even less detail due to generational loss in the print making process. The only area where 35mm could possibly show some advantage over 2K projection is if the movie was rendered with a 4K DI. But that advantage is only going to be there if the film prints were well made.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

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

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.