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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » TRON: LEGACY in IMAX3D/LIEMAX/15.70mm/RealD/UltraAVX Back2back2back2backt2back (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: TRON: LEGACY in IMAX3D/LIEMAX/15.70mm/RealD/UltraAVX Back2back2back2backt2back Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 01-14-2011 01:17 PM                     Imax tried to conquer the world with 15/70 and could not quite make it happen after 40 years but now via Digital projection they will help destroy 35mm film and their own 15/70 legacy! I know its better than regular crap DC but i fail to care one little bit! When the smoke clears on this digital conversion crap and film is but a Fight Club memory i will have a home theater set up with 35mm,16mm and dlp which will smoke all the silly multiplexes! Yay me Sorry just ranting  |  IP: Logged Tom Mundell Expert Film Handler Posts: 120 From: Silver Spring, MD, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 01-14-2011 02:28 PM                        Regardless of what they call these new Imax rooms, I still dislike them after giving them a try at two different locations. And for $17.50 per ticket they really fail to deliver! The lack of masking is a huge drawback and this reason alone is enough to keep me from going back. Was really annoying that one room went from a common height screen with proper masking to a common width screen with no masking! Not only is this a big downgrade, but for an apparently "premium" experience with a $7.50 surcharge seems unacceptable. Their sound systems are pretty good, but aren't terribly impressive either; I can think of a number of standard multiplex rooms that I think have better sound. Sound at one location really had little deep bass, was very loud and boomy - not an improvement over every other room in the complex. The second I've been to was much better, less echo and deeper bass. At both I really dislike the use of just two surround speakers, to me using the typical array of speakers sounds much better especially when you aren't seated in the middle of the room. With 7.1 sound available in my home, a typical 5.1 setup in large theaters is starting to look disappointing. For such a large price increase I wasn't exactly blown away by the sound! 3D quality certainly varies by location too, at one the 3D was far worse than any RealD screen I've seen with lots of ghosting and glare on the glasses. The other blew any RealD I've seen out of the water; much brighter, even picture and excellent 3D effect. I've no idea why such a difference between the two locations. quote: Tom Petrov I saw "How Do You Know" in 35mm on a small 14 foot screen, I also saw "The Fighter" on a 45 footer at AMC. Should the smaller 14 footer be called "35mm lite"? 35mm has never been a brand though, it's the technology. Theaters with the Imax name have always been specific technology using 15/70 film on giant screens and now they're suddenly changing that with no differentiation in the name. But, since they keep building more of these things, I guess people are paying. I've been wondering if anyone has any records on how attendance in a converted room has been affected over time. Now that I've given it a try, I'm not going back.  |  IP: Logged Tom Petrov Five Guys Lover Posts: 1121 From: El Paso, TX Registered: Jan 2003 posted 01-14-2011 02:32 PM                    quote: Victor Liorentas Imax tried to conquer the world with 15/70 IMAX tried to conquer documentaries. NOT movies.  |  IP: Logged Cameron Glendinning Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 845 From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia Registered: Dec 2005 posted 01-14-2011 05:15 PM                     IMAX with documentries made films that put commercial cinemas cashflow to shame! A film is a film no mater what genra and a paying audience is a paying audience! The interesting aspect to IMAX was that a good production could have a 20 year release and ultimately can create a box office that equals a successful world wide commercial release. IMAX's move to commercial Hollywood fare is based upon the demand created by the vaste number of people who have visited these traditional Imax venues and wished that they could see a blockbuster on that giant screen! In what was always a vastly better designed auditorium than found in typical cinema complexs. IMAX have been trying to tap into this audience for well over 10 years and here in Australia you can find many closed (now converted to 35mm) IMAX theatres built in typical commercial cinema zones. Strangely the ones built in typical museums and tourist zones are still doing very well even with the commercial fare. Here in Sydney Australia the difference in our 2 IMAX screens is very noticable, one is a film based venue with the largest cinema screen in the world, ballpark 90 x 130', the other is a conversion of a Hoyts cinema. They even have larger conventional screened cinemas in their chain! In the past people here have drawn a link to the first large format process called cinerama a 3x35mm projector process that filled a giant deep curve screen in the 1950's. It started with travelogues and documentries and grew to full feature productions. It was cheapened to a single 5/70mm projector system and promply disappeared. Without differentation between the different IMAX experience todays more decerning audience will eventually decide/ vote with their dollar. The demand was created over a 30 year period with a solid product. The management over the last 10 years has already burned many who have invested money into IMAX theatres. I know I would not invest my money into IMAX shares with their business plans but I am sure many people are!  |  IP: Logged Caleb Johnstone-Cowan Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 593 From: London, UK Registered: Mar 2006 posted 01-14-2011 05:56 PM                     I think Mark, Tom and Cameron present valid criticisms, and that there are definitely two very strong sides in this argument. The most important thing for those of us who are pro-IMAX digital is to not try and pretend it is better than 15/70, because it isn't. I am definitely swayed in part because being a manager of any kind of IMAX is something I never thought would happen, and I'm quite happy to get the chance to run one and put that on my CV. Cameron your post is why I think there is still a place for 15/70 IMAX. However for areas outside major cities and museums the digital format is a great alternative.  |  IP: Logged Ian Parfrey Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1049 From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E Registered: Feb 2009 posted 01-14-2011 07:40 PM                     Since when have documentaries not been movies??.. or entertainment...or feature length? What IMAX did very successfully was to conquer the 'Event' screening, whether it be fictional, factual or a mix of both. They did this with the most unique film-based system yet invented and which has yet to be beaten quality wise - with the eexception of Showscan. This resulted in the IMAX brand that was inexorably linked with a known product- e.g 15/70, mammoth sound and HUGE screens that fill the vertical and horizontal fields of view. What is IMAX now? $100 says you wont get the same specifically identifiable product that IMAX used to be...and that brand has been irreparably damaged.  |  IP: Logged Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 01-15-2011 04:07 AM                     If I recall correctly... and I freely admit I could be remembering wrong... IMAX was looking at potential bankruptcy a decade or so ago, before they started doing the DMR conversions of mainstream Hollywood movies. If I am remembering correctly, it would be highly ironic that was killed the format for many of you is what saved it for the last several years before Digital IMAX. But let's face it... money talks, and the cost of creating and shipping one hard drive compared to 40-75 reels of 70mm film is what really killed the format, even as it was saving it.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-15-2011 10:22 AM                        You are right. I was told that the museums that partnered with IMAX thinking it would be a financial boon for their bottom line, toward mid-90s were seeing red ink all over the place, and they were very unhappy pups. IMAX itself was in dire striates if you read the open minutes of the shareholders meeting where the CEO explained that film IMAX was economically unsustainable. DMR was an attempt to stop the hemoraging, by getting Hollywood features on their screens, but in the end even that was not enough -- it was still film-based and the cost was prohibitive. If I remember, I too railed against their move to digital, but even I could see that the company simply had to do something or they would be out of business. They are doing what they have to do. And believe me, having been in total awe seeing my first IMAX back in the late 70s at the Cinesphere in Ontario Place, NORTH OF SUPERIOR, it is hard for me to admit that I think IMAX is doing the right thing to remain viable. They may not be the IMAX you and I love, but from what I have seen, their IMAX-D theatres are run on a much higher overall level than your average multiplex. And that is worth quite a bit in my book. The are at the level of what we used to call a flagship theatre and those used to be mostly 70mm houses. Has the IMAX brand been tarnished -- well to us, sure. But they are not looking back to our generation, but ahead. To the younger general public who have never seen film IMAX, all they will know is that the "IMAX Experience" as they are still branding themselves, now done digitally is still quite a bit better than the regular multiplex "experience." The screen is bigger, it's curved, the image is brighter and if it's 3D it is MUCH brighter. The sound is impressive, the theatre is clean and the seats bigger and more comfortable -- so how have they ruined the IMAX brand if that is what the current crop of moviegoers experience when they go to an IMAX theatre? Nothing. IMAX will still represent a higher quality presentation to Joe Moviegoer than what he gets at other venues. To him, the brand is still synonymous with a quality operation. They have risen from near bankrupcy to a decent place in the mind of the moviegoing public, us not included. To me, that's pretty much what I call pulling victory from the jaws of defeat.  |  IP: Logged Tom Petrov Five Guys Lover Posts: 1121 From: El Paso, TX Registered: Jan 2003 posted 01-15-2011 01:18 PM                    Frank- It is nice to see that there are some people on here who can have a decent conversation about IMAX without making lame silly remarks. quote: Frank Angel Has the IMAX brand been tarnished -- well to us, sure. I don't think so. I think it stronger than ever! It is proven that the Digital IMAX is selling, and selling strong.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 01-15-2011 08:34 PM                    quote: Tom Petrov And how long have they been showing "Hollywood" fare, feature length films on these giant screens you are talking about? I saw "How Do You Know" in 35mm on a small 14 foot screen, I also saw "The Fighter" on a 45 footer at AMC. Should the smaller 14 footer be called "35mm lite"? That's just about the dumbest analogy you could have chosen. Had these digital fake IMAX theaters installed 15/70 projectors to show on their screens, you might have something. But they are showing a completely different product with no film at all that has an end result which is so demonstrably inferior to their established and well known brand on so many levels it's ridiculous. Is it a legitimate product that's cool? Maybe. But should be called something else.  |  IP: Logged Aaron Garman Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1470 From: Toledo, OH USA Registered: Mar 2003 posted 01-15-2011 11:33 PM                     Add to this that mainstream Hollywood is going nuts over digital technology, which honestly, doesn't translate well to 15/70: video and 2K just doesn't cut it when you get THAT big. Thank God for Christopher Nolan. Also, why should I pay a major surcharge to see IMAX Digital when a room with a competent tech and projectionist + 35mm can achieve better results? I know I enjoyed Inception much more in 35mm than in IMAX Digital, as did my wallet. Why can't we just get well thought out and designed rooms with the technology to match it? There's also no reason why filmmakers should even be considering anything below 4K for shooting or DI: it's just downright ridiculous, and something we'll all laugh about in 20 years when it looks like garbage. AJG  |  IP: Logged Ramon Lamarca Marques Expert Film Handler Posts: 186 From: Edgware, England, UK Registered: Feb 2006 posted 01-16-2011 09:42 AM                     It is curious that few people have made the analogy with Cinerama. As you all know, at the beginning Cinerama, like IMAX, was a filming and projecting system. By the end Cinerama was nothing, they blew-up even 35mm onto single strip 70mm. They did not have a unique product and they vanished. IMAX digital means nothing to me since it is not a filming process and so there is no control as to the quality of the product shown. There is only control as to the way it is shown. Since it uses digital 2K systems to screen and have no control as to how the picture has been filmed, there are already competitors appearing and so they won’t have a unique product, which is good for exhibitors since there will be competition and digital presentations will hopefully improve, although I prefer film. I am surprised also that no one is mentioning aspect ratios and the correct ways of seeing films shot in different aspect ratios. A proper widescreen film should not be seen on the traditional IMAX screen, blown-up and letterboxed. Audiences are too close to the screen to enjoy widescreen photography devised for traditional cinemas. Anything with fast editing should not be seen on the IMAX big screen either, it causes headache and it is very unpleasant. Yet, films like The Dark Knight Rises can ONLY be seen in a traditional IMAX cinema and I think this is the magic of it. If the rumours are true, The Dark Knight Rises will have many more sequences in real IMAX than The Dark Knight had. If they are as impressive as the ones for The Dark Knight, the film, as it is conceived cannot be seen any other way. There is nothing even remotely close nowadays to IMAX (proper IMAX filmed and screened), the rest pales by comparison. Whoever goes to see this film in an IMAX digital theatre will be wasting their money, yet both presentations (digital and film) will be advertised as being in IMAX, which to me is highly deceiving to the consumer. This is the type of cinematic attraction that will make travelling to the closest (real, true, proper) IMAX theatre worthwhile. I think that instead of digital IMAX theatres they should be building more IMAX real theatres and Hollywood investing in more 15/70 IMAX commercial films. Imagine people like James Cameron or Ridley Scott filming with IMAX cameras. Those films would have to be experienced and this is something digital downloads or TV screenings would not provide. Also, it would be worth getting back systems like UltraPanavision for traditional big screens and make use of the very wide experience on a curved screen, that would be something difficult to replicate as well. IMAX digital, no masking, no five speakers behind the screen, no consistency as to the product shown in terms of image acquisition, … how can this be good?  |  IP: Logged Frederick Lanoy Film Handler Posts: 88 From: North of France Registered: Aug 2009 posted 01-16-2011 11:07 AM                     I can understand that IMAX has a digital system for small multiplex screen. Some movies like "The green hornet" don't deserve 70 mm print anyway. But here, in France, i was truly sad when i learnt that a traditionnal IMAX screen mostly dedicated to DMR pictures was converted in digital. The 70 mm image was really glorious on that giant screen (IMAX scenes of "The dark knight" looked fantastic). Now, the dual 2 K system doesn't give the same result... IMAX should put digital system only on retrofit theater. Shame to learn that the next Mission : impossible will have some scenes shoot in IMAX 70 mm and know that all IMAX screens in France are now digital. I mean : what's the point shooting in 8 K if no screen can show the full resolution and respect the original aspect ratio (1.44) ?  |  IP: Logged Mark Lensenmayer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1605 From: Upper Arlington, OH Registered: Sep 1999 posted 01-17-2011 11:18 AM                     The whole problem with this IMAX mess is that they have two very distinct products with a single name. To make it worse, the IMAX executives want to convince the public that the "IMAX Experience" is the same no matter where it is exhibited. Product "A" is the traditional 15/70 museum-type experience. These are typically short films that can run for months or even years at a time. Most museums do not depend on repeat visitors, so a new audience is available every day. Commercial cinemas just can not work with this model, and that is why many of the IMAX theatres installed in the late '90's were eventual failures. The current commercial cinema model depends on a near constant turn-over of product. The audience returns regularly and expects to see something new each time. It is just not economical to produce enough features in 15/70 to fill this demand. The cost of prints is just too high. The solution is digital. Once the digital master is made, copies are quick and cheap. You can send out a new movie every week or two and the audience will be happy. I think IMAX was correct to introduce product "B", the MPX systems. (Note that IMAX calls its digital system the "IMAX Digital MPX Theatre System.) They had to make some compromises, the most obvious being cutting down the height of the screen. It really didn't make a whole lot of difference, as Hollywood movies are much wider than tall.) By making the system digital, new movies can be moved in on a regular basis. The 2011 release schedule has a new IMAX-enhanced movie about every 2 weeks. There is a gap right now in late summer, but that is likely to be filled in by then. I love the original IMAX system. That huge picture with the rock solid image and great sound will always be something I seek out whenever possible. But, I understand why it had to change in the commercial environment. I just wish they had given it a different name, and they would stop lying about all IMAX being the same.  |  IP: Logged Michael Brown Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1522 From: Bradford, England Registered: May 2001 posted 01-24-2011 07:08 PM                     There is an interesting artical about 'new' IMAX here: http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.