Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: IMAX,..no, Giant Screen...no, Ultrascreen!!!

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » IMAX,..no, Giant Screen...no, Ultrascreen!!! (Page 2)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: IMAX,..no, Giant Screen...no, Ultrascreen!!!

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 06-17-2001 11:14 AM

hmmmmmmmmm the artical states that the prints are modified to accomidate the longer throw to the screen. Can anyone tell me do these prints have the analog sound track on them. Could they have posably filled the entire four perf area with picture and just rely on the dolby digital and sdds soundtracks.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-17-2001 12:06 PM

The current crop of 35mm "IMAX THEATRE PRINTS" are nothing more than the old Drive In prints of the past. Printed about 1 stop lighter.
If they really cared about quality they would reprint on 70mm stock

| IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 06-17-2001 02:37 PM

Yes, Gordon, the Ultrascreen Theatre in Ontario, CA. It looks like San Bernardino County owns the theatre and they also have a trademark registered for using the "Ultrascreen" name in association with a theatre. Registration number 2403292. Oooooo, Busted! Their website seems to be down this weekend, though. www.ultrascreen.com

| IP: Logged

Mark Lensenmayer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1605
From: Upper Arlington, OH
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 06-20-2001 06:26 AM

Well, in today's episode of NAME THAT SCREEN, We find that the phrase "UltraScreen in THX" has been replaced with "Giant Screen Experience".

Mark Lensenmayer

| IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 06-20-2001 10:07 AM

While I think that Imax would have some interest in how this infringes on their "The IMAX Experience" trademark, I think the Giant Screen Theater Association would be even more concerned. With "giant screen" used commonly to describe large format (8/70 and 15/70) theaters, a 35mm presentation is far from a "giant screen experience". But you guys already know that.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 06-20-2001 12:18 PM

If a print "enhanced" for projection on a huge screen simply means printing it lighter to compensate for low screen luminance, it really won't look good. Reducing the printer exposure will make the shadow areas less dense and "milky", make the colors desaturate, make the flesh tones pasty, and lose highlight detail.

The largest lamp practicable for 35mm is 7000 watts. Size the image to obtain proper screen luminance (at least 12 footlamberts), and don't count on a lighter print to allow a lower luminance and look good.

I agree that a 5-perf 70mm blow-up would be much better suited to filling a huge screen, as Gordon has done on numerous occasions at the Cinesphere IMAX theatre at Ontario Place in Toronto.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 06-29-2001 04:51 PM

Just a note I found about the UltraScreen Theatre in Ontario, CA:

According to the LA Times, "In November 1999 the 440-seat UltraScreen Theatre at Ontario Mills closed its doors because it was losing $130,000 a month."

And now, of course Edwards wants to dump all six of their Imax theatres, including the one in Ontario.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-29-2001 05:03 PM

The UltraScreen was a twin machine Iwerks 1570 booth and it was too bad that the comercial Edwards theatre drove the institutional theatre under and then Edwards says well it didn't work so lets take our marbles and go home leaving nothing
I wonder who bought the Iwerks machines as they were up for sale

| IP: Logged

Charles Everett
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: New Jersey
Registered: May 2001

posted 02-19-2002 05:51 PM

For the re-release of Beauty and the Beast, newspaper ads and the picture's website announce it is "Exclusively in IMAX and Giant Screen Theatres".

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-19-2002 06:29 PM

Marcus stopping their Imax runs doesn't surprise me a bit. I'm quite sure they're finding out that Imax is simlpy overkill, and way too much overexpense in a plex sort of situation. With what Imax charges it could never work. I know that Edwards bailed out of Imax all together, and Regal is doing the same. With Imax's rediclous expenses I think you'll see more and more of these sites get converted to 70mm 8 perfwhich is what they should ahve been in the forst place anyway. In these circumstances someone at the chains didn't do their homework very well. I can summise that Marcus is up to exactly what Edwards and Regal did. The Imax will come out and the 8 operf will go in, and all the while they will keep running regular films inside that expensive piece of real estate that they still have to pay for.
Personally, I like Imax films alot, but the company has backed themselves into a corner with an ever tightening nuce around their neck. Although Gord will tell U different.

In Salt Lake City we have the "Super Screen" but there's nothing so super about it.
Mark @ Old GTS

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-19-2002 07:01 PM

According to the information posted today on 1570.com IMAX and Regal have settled (pending bankrupcy court approval) to pay off the outstanding balances in a partial lump sum payment and keep the theatres open as IMAX theatres sorry

no joy in 8 perf land today

15 70 rules

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-19-2002 09:04 PM

15/70 may rule till the bankruptcy court gets ahold of it(if thats true). However, No bankruptcy court would allow them to keep it as it hasn't made them a dimes profit.
Mark @ Home

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

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

posted 02-19-2002 10:59 PM

As they say about muscle cars; "There's no replacement for displacement." and the same is true of image quality.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-19-2002 11:34 PM

Hey John,
Aren't U guys running the Maverick? Hows it going? Would U consider it a Crowning Achievement?
Mark @ Home

| IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 02-20-2002 02:24 AM

Mark: The Maverick (both of them) are installed and are sorta running. The company is now (again) out of biz. Gosh, you'd think that those guys would give up and do something reliable like 870...

And, yes Mark, I would consider it a "Crowning Achievement"....I would be VERY concerned about my personal safety if I was near a running Maverick projector for fear of being "crowned!" and injured as it blew up and spued shattered parts all over.

It IS scarey!!!!! I would also buy stock and invest in a roller bearing company!

I will email Brad pics of the projector for posting.

Also, I challenge ANYONE to tell the difference between a Kodak (Yea! KodaK FILMS!!!!!)70mm print of a 870 or a 1570 presentation. I have done blind tests at some of the Large Format gatherings all over the world over the years and the difference is not noticeable. As a matter of fact, alot of 1570 releases are filmed in the 870 format and blown-up to 1570. The tests were done many times and on screens up to 80ft wide. Granted if your screen is over 80, YOU might be able to tell the difference with a criticle eye if you knew. So EXCUSE ME if I choke everytime some uniformed person mentions "IMAX" 1570 instead of "Large Format" which includes Iwerks 1570 and 870 (and others). (Gordon, don't give me any sh!t)

Hmmmm.... now that I have totally lost my thought train, I just want to wish everyone a merry christmas and a happy new year. J/K!!!!!

>>> Phil

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

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.