|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: People are catching wise to IMAX MPX/Digital...
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1605
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 06-22-2009 06:52 PM
Frank Marshall, producer of films such as Poltergeist, Gremlins, Goonies, Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Sixth Sense, The Bourne films, and many more, made this statement about Digital Imax:
quote:
While attending screening of BRUNO last night, I stopped into the much hyped IMAX theater at the AMC on 42nd st. NYC. I was stunned…” … “there is nothing remotely resembling an IMAX screen or presentation, don’t spend your money for this.” … “I can’t believe they can get away with this. It’s really false advertising…”
Slashfilm.com
Newsinfilm.com
(There is a chart referenced in this article that is not correct. The ratios are quite far off.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1605
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 09-02-2009 09:32 AM
Popular Mechanics has posted this article concerning the digIMAX controversy.
Brian Bonnick, IMAX executive vice-president for technology, makes this statement:
quote:
I think it all has to do with expectations. In the past, people have made reference to the big screen because it was a simple piece of terminology you can use. But what they were really speaking to was the fact that it was an immersive experience. The analogy I could use is that if I gave you a screen that was a mile wide, but I put it far away from you, it would look small. But it's still a big, big screen. But that screen, to be big, also has to be close to the audience. It turns out that in our large theaters, the field of view in the front row seat happens to be the same as in our [smaller] digital theaters, more or less. In a typical theater we [converted], the original screen was 44 feet wide, with a field of view of 41 degrees from the center seat. We removed 4 rows of seats, we put in our proprietary screen, which was 23 percent larger, and 12 feet closer to the audience. That manifested itself as a screen area increase of over 225 percent, and an increase of field of view of 59 percent. Those are massive numbers. While some clients might get upset—and we get the odd one—the general marketplace can't get enough of IMAX. We're sold out in advance because they get it. We're providing an immersive experience, and yes, while the screen might not physically be as large, we're still filling that peripheral vision. That's really what we're about: making an experience that you forget you're looking through a window, you forget you're looking through a picture frame—you're sucked right into the experience.
Well, I guess I'm just one of the odd ones.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-03-2009 02:21 PM
God, do these people all go to SPIN SCHOOL or what? What a pile of crap. Does he think that throwing these numbers around will make ANYONE think that these LieMax installs are the same as watching an original 15/70 film IMAX? Use all the damn numbers you want Mr. Bonerdick, people are sitting in your digital theatre and not a one who has ever seen a REAL IMAX will come out saying that it's the same thing. Call it what you will, spin it till you're blue in the face and quote all the nonsense numbers you want -- they are NOT seeing the same IMAX experience as the original no matter what seat you put them in. Like taking out 4 rows magically turns a regular screen into an IMAX size, IMAX ratio, IMAX experience screen.
By his logic, as long as you sit close enough to ANY screen, it will somehow be transformed into the IMAX experience. The screen in the new install which I saw at Regal in Sheepshead Bay Brooklyn was a TAD bigger than what was in THAT multiplex room before, but certainly not any larger than many screens in many other standard theatres. Sure, you can sit a foot from your tv screen and according to this joker, it will be the IMAX "experience."
He's also very conveniently ignoring the 15/7 FILM RESOLUTION issue. HELLOOOO! They are projecting the exact same resolution that any standard theatre projects when they author a Hollywood film to digital. It's 2K, now maybe 4K if your lucky. Has he said anything about how IMAX gets higher resolution masters at, say 8K, maybe even higher? Of course not. So how does projection the same files make what's on his screen it look any better than standard digital theatres? It doesn't. And you can take it to the back that if they WERE actually getting higher resolution authored files, they would be crowing about that for days.
Which leaves us with their two projector "innovation." Just because they use two projectors (when they actually ARE using both of them -- evidently in some installations they were actually showing with only one projector running), that doesn't mean they are getting any better resolution than on the digital screen in the theatre next door. Besides, oh LieMAX CEO who likes to quote numbers, you can't MAKE resolution by adding projectors which are displaying the same information.
I have seen this new LieMAX and I can tell all you LieMAX CEO execs, you can spin it all you want and sound like fools or worse, like used car salesmen, but an apple will never be an orange, and you LieMAX boys have got yourselves a barrel full of rotten apples. Hey, measure them and quote the numbers for their average size and diameter and the number you've got in the barrel and how far away we are when looking at those rotten apples, but we the public simply won't buy your rotten apples, especially when we are looking for oranges in the first place....you know, the good, tasty oranges you USED to sell and what everyone expected to get when you told us you are charging $5 EXTRA because we would be getting ORANGES! No matter where we sit, Mister, they still look like apples.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-04-2009 02:35 AM
Thing is, Mike, it's a crock that even the marginally aware civilian recognizes -- he paid for IMAX and he know he didn't get IMAX; it's as simple as that. The thing is, all they have to do is SAY SO. End of controversy. Just say that IMAX digital is NOT the old IMAX (with emphasis on "old"), but it's new technology that let's them be able to show the most current, most popular Hollywood titles which could not be shown with the old IMAX technology. If they have to explain why the screens aren't as big as the original IMAX, all they have to say is, yes, they were bigger, but they were the wrong size to show Hollywood wide screen movies. Say they could keep the tall screens but all the films that everyone wants to see (name the most current scope titles) would waste the top and bottom of the old IMAX screens. Then get OFF that screen size issue and go on about how clean their theatres are, how the staff is dedicated to making the entire experience unique...in other words, an "IMAX Experience."
They could make a big deal about that Hollywood films, unlike the Nature films that were shown in IMAX theatres 20 years ago, are filmed with a wide image, not the squareish image of the old IMAX screens. IMAX is simply advancing with the new technology. Blah blah blah....it's a piece of cake to spin -- even I could be their press writer. All they need to do is get off this "The digital IMAX is the same experience as the original IMAX" and move on. Oh yah, and drop their rediculous prices.
They need to position themselves as primere theatres that are a a quantum leap better than the standard multiplex which the public already is not terribly happy about. IMAX could be kind of like what the 70mm theatres were to standard 35mm houses -- just a better run, better all-around place to see a movie. Do that, and they might still have a chance to reinvent themselves and come out looking desirable rather than sending out vice-presidents to tell everyone how nice the Emperor's new cloths look.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted 09-21-2009 05:19 PM
Another statement from the CEO. I don't trust this "survey" they did.
Click Here
September 21, 2009
To IMAX Guests and Fans:
When we first released Star Trek: The IMAX Experience earlier this year, we received several direct complaints and saw some heated comments online about how some IMAX multiplex design locations were not “real” IMAX theatres. I’d like to address what happened, the results of the consumer research we conducted, and what we’re doing after hearing from consumers.
In July 2008 we began accelerating the expansion of IMAX® theatres through the roll-out of our new digital projection technology. Our efforts coincided with progress by the entire film industry towards the transition to a digital platform, and we knew we had to embrace digital to remain a leader in the entertainment technology industry. Our goal was to develop a digital theatre system for multiplex design IMAX theatres, which would help us expand our business and improve our ability to bring more amazing 2D and 3D Hollywood content to IMAX audiences around the world.
IMAX is a consumer brand, and your experience must always come first, regardless of how our business evolves. In fact, it took us around ten years to develop a digital system which we (and consumers) felt delivered the IMAX “wow” factor. The rapid expansion of IMAX multiplex design locations – facilitated by our digital system – enabled us to showcase Hollywood content like never before. For example, this year we were able to secure Star Trek for an exclusive 2-week run and to offer more than 10 Hollywood films in IMAX theatres in a single year.
But, as with any change, the same business strategy that allowed us to show more films on more screens – and in more locations – also brought some consumer confusion and frustration about screen dimensions in some multiplex settings. Understandably, you care less about the business rationale for change than you do about the overall experience and whether you receive value for your money. Some of you went so far as to claim we were intentionally duping moviegoers.
As the CEO of a company that cares deeply about its guests and somebody who recognizes that a brand’s strength is based largely upon meeting and exceeding consumer expectations, I was personally and deeply troubled to hear that some people felt we were intentionally misleading IMAX fans. This assertion was particularly upsetting given our customers’ traditional passion for IMAX and our reputation for excellence in technology and innovation.
After hearing these complaints, I committed to do more consumer research to investigate satisfaction levels at the new multiplex design theatres and to find out if we needed to provide more information to ensure consumers knew what they were getting when they visited multiplex design IMAX theatres (as opposed to classic design IMAX theatres).
We hired The Nielsen Company, an internationally known consumer research firm and quickly moved forward with a survey of more than 6,000 IMAX moviegoers in both classic design locations and multiplex design locations during the run of Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian: The IMAX Experience and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: The IMAX Experience. The research included 11 IMAX theatres across the United States, and to ensure that we tested consumer satisfaction levels across an array of screen sizes and projection types, we surveyed three classic design and eight multiplex design locations (representing both film-based and digital projection systems) with IMAX screen sizes ranging from 50.5’ wide x 28.5’ high to 84’ wide x 63’ high. IMAX theatres come in all shapes and sizes, but they all need to deliver The IMAX Experience, or we haven’t done our job.
The big picture (pun intended) finding was that the satisfaction levels in both classic design and multiplex design IMAX theatres were almost identical, regardless of screen size.
Additional highlights:
- The satisfaction levels for the individual elements of The IMAX Experience were similar (aggregate of “extremely” and “very” satisfied) in classic design and multiplex design locations
- Screen size: ~88% for classic design and ~85% for multiplex design
- Image quality: ~86% for classic design and ~86% for multiplex design
- Surround sound: ~89% for classic design and ~87% for multiplex design
- Sense of feeling immersed: ~87% for classic design and ~83% for multiplex design
- The vast majority of moviegoers are drawn to IMAX because they expect the experience of IMAX is better than a regular theatre (~89%), and that IMAX provides good value entertainment (~81%).
You can find a thorough summary of the research results. Click HERE.
The survey results and your reactions to The IMAX Experience have given us greater insight into some of the reasons for the increasing enthusiasm we’re seeing for IMAX films. It is important to note that the research was conducted in 2D where one would expect the most confusion to arise, not 3D, where IMAX’s immersive premium over a conventional theatre is even more pronounced.
Although our research shows that audiences like IMAX in each of its various shapes and sizes, we would like to create greater transparency regarding our theatre locations to help consumers make sure they know “what they’re getting” when they visit an IMAX theatre. We are indicating which locations are multiplex design on IMAX.com, so when you want to find a location nearby, you will know if you are going to one of the locations that is an upgrade to an existing auditorium or a classic design. We’re also offering movie theaters information flyers that will be available at the box office so you can fully understand the components that make up The IMAX Experience at the point of purchase.
We are proud that IMAX is a cherished consumer brand, which stands for the most immersive way to experience the best Hollywood movies and entertaining documentaries. Digital technology has enabled us to reach further, grow larger and be more available to consumers. But we understand that as IMAX evolves, we must remain in touch with what consumers expect from us, and we will continue to try to ensure that The IMAX Experience meets your expectations. While we recognize that we may not be able to please everyone all of the time, we do welcome your feedback and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Rich Gelfond
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 09-22-2009 06:25 PM
quote:
Edwin, your right, no one sits in them, usually. But you need the first 4 rows for sell-outs,
Hmmmmm....
So, if I pull out my playground & put cars in there, it would be about the same, eh?
For sure, it would be a big ![[Moon]](graemlins/moon.gif) picture... most certainly an "immersive experience" !! (?)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 09-23-2009 09:15 AM
How nice for IMAX to have commissioned a study to confirm what they wanted to hear.
While 6,000 people is a decent-sized sample, it's unfortunate that only 11 locations were used, and only 3 of those were the "classic" IMAX design.
Additionally, only 20% of multiplex audience members had seen a movie in both formats. That means that if the audiences were distributed equally, about 872 people out of the 6,000 surveyed (just under 15%) had experience that may have qualified them to judge the two formats.
I don't know if any such locations or even general areas exist, but I would like to see such results from someone after being given the chance to experience a movie in four ways:
- average multiplex movie screen
- super-sized movie screen (a la Marcus UltraScreen)
- multiplex IMAX screen
- classic IMAX screen
How many attendees would be willing to see the movie in the multiplex IMAX screen vs. the classic IMAX screen? How many would be willing to pay an extra $4 (40% more) to see it on the multiplex IMAX screen vs. the super-sized movie screen?
I think most people who have never seen a classic IMAX screen are going to be very impressed with the multiplex variety. The sound is very good and the image is very big. This is going to be more impressive than your standard 26'-wide movie screen. But someone that has been to a 75-80' wide IMAX screen is going to feel a little let down when they walk into a 50-footer. That was the whole basis for Aziz Ansari's rant in the first place.
To his credit, Gelfond is promising to identify the mini-max's on their web site. However, that indication is buried within the details section of the theater information on the IMAX site. While they color-code the IMAX, IMAX Dome, and IMAX 3D theaters on their map, you have to click on the theater, then click on Theater Type to see the line of text that says "This location is a multiplex design IMAX theater". Not all theaters have type designations yet, so perhaps they're still working on it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
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
![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic