|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: RealD enters into size contest with Imax
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 06-29-2013 03:35 PM
I applaud the concept of branding a set of features that delivers a known level of performance, except that I'm not sure that this does that.
RealD has branded itself as a 3D company with their "See it in RealD 3D" taglines on movie posters and many movie showtimes that say "RealD 3D" (as if anyone cared about which company provided the 3D technology). So there is probably some level of brand awareness for the RealD company, but it's completely tied to 3D product. It's going to take money and/or time to broaden their brand to be more encompassing.
I find it interesting that they are referring to it as the “ultimate out-of-home entertainment experience." Their point of reference is home theater, not commercial exhibition. I would think that they could aim squarely at the likes of IMAX and all the RPX, ETX, XD, etc of the industry by saying that it's the "ultimate moviegoing experience."
Such a tagline would promise great things, as it would be the best experience one could get to watch a movie, whether at home or in a theater. Perhaps that would be biting off more than they can chew?
16 meters (52.5 feet) is about the minimum that I would consider to be a "large-screen" experience. While that pales in comparison to the size of 70-80 ft screens, I'd much rather watch a movie in a correctly-sized auditorium with a nicely-lit 55' screen, than a larger auditorium that has all kinds of compromises. This is especially true if it means that instead of just one 70' screen, a theater might have two or three 50' screens, or more.
Give me a brand that concentrates on delivering a solid set of performance points, and I'll get behind it. Make sure that the screen is lit properly, with impressive sound will make an impact whether it's delivering a blow-em-up action movie or a quiet drama, and have a mechanism for regular calibrations of both, and you have something that I can get behind.
I dare RealD or anyone to do that, but to date, no one has. Why is it so difficult to achieve (and maintain) excellence in this industry?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 06-29-2013 04:19 PM
quote: Frank Angel
IMAX at this stage of the game can only claim to have BIG screens if you compare them to some of the matchbox screens in many multiplex operations. But they are only RELATIVELY large from that standpoint; but if you compare them for what counted as big screens in days of single screen movie theatres where really large 70mm screens were commonplace, today's LIEMAX is no IMAX.
IMAX still can claim big screen, many of their stand alone/museum locations are showing Hollywood movies.
quote: Frank Angel
So now we are going to be asked to pay MORE for quality presentation? Since when did theatres charge by the screen foot? Oh...I guess since now. So will these new screens just be bigger or will the RealD 'luxe experience" include dual projectors so the image isn't just the same light spread out over a larger screen....fewer "lux"? The size of the screen is irrelevant -- anyone can increase the size of the screen -- what kind of image will be thrown up on it is what matters. And what does a theatre owner need RealD for (other than marketing hype...like coming up with that great logo 'LUXE and the unique phrase "ReaD Experience" -- you know, like IMAX's trademarked moniker)? Anyone can put in larger screens if they choose; anyone can install dual projectors if they want that bigger screen to be reach decent "'lux" levels and color saturation. What has ReaD to do with it?
IMAX is huge right now, and for a new tent pole to be released, it often needs the IMAX Experience to help it. RealD is smart to cash in on the current trend of big screen/big sound.
I just saw an advertisement for The Wolverine, at the end it stated "In RealD, RealD 3D and Large Format Theatres"
This is reality of the cinema right now, and it will be like this going forward.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 07-01-2013 12:04 PM
quote: Frank Angel
Large Format digital? "Large format has always refered to the projection system -- a big screen size but MUCH more importantly, a higher resolution image source to go along with it, be it 5/70mm or 8/70mm or 15/70mme -- not just an increase in the screen size without a corresponding higher resolution image source. Which is why no one called a DriveIn using 35mm on a 120 foot screen a Large Format Theatre. Similarly, just blowing up the same DLP image chips with the same number of pixals isn't "large format," it's dog poo.
"RealD 'Lux Experience," "Large Format Theatres" and anything else they decide to call 2K source blown up on a bigger(ish) screen are nothing but nonsense words that they are just pulling out their asses.
I think, big screen and big sound is the changing face and reality of what large format is. Sure we had 15/70 and 70mm, but the generation that is paying for IMAX Digital and ETX really do not care that there was once a 70mm format. Most people would not be able to tell or know what to look at when they compare the difference between film/digital, sad, yes but that is the changing face of what people are willing to pay for and more importantly, accept.
Some people of the current younger generation will never know that there were once 100 feet screens or 7 storey IMAX screens.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-01-2013 01:55 PM
I think large format digital belongs in the same oxymoron category as jumbo shrimp.
The growth of IMAX Digital and other premium priced big screen theaters doesn't qualify them as large format. The general public's lack of knowledge on what truly makes a theater experience large format doesn't qualify big screen digital as large format either. Most of the general public probably couldn't name the state capitol of South Dakota. The town of Pierre still exists despite that lack of general public knowledge. Sioux Falls can't just become the state capitol simply because it is better known and has more residents.
For digital to be large format it must rise to a level of extravagance or excess that would be cost prohibitive or impractical to install in a standard auditorium with only so many seats. Notice I didn't say anything about quality. 2K on a giant sized screen isn't anymore 2K than 2K shown on a more modest sized screen, it's just going to be bigger and more blurry.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
IMAX still can claim big screen, many of their stand alone/museum locations are showing Hollywood movies.
Given the choice between watching IMAX Digital on a modest Lie-MAX sized screen or shown on a screen originally made for real 15/70mm film projection, I'd rather watch it on the smaller screen. That limited 2K pixel grid won't be blown up to such a massively blurry scale. But if I'm going to watch the 2K movie on a more modestly sized screen, I'd rather not have to pay a big price premium to see it.
Maybe things will get better when the dual 4K laser projectors begin deployment. But we're not there yet.
quote: Scott Jentsch
I find it interesting that they are referring to it as the “ultimate out-of-home entertainment experience." Their point of reference is home theater, not commercial exhibition. I would think that they could aim squarely at the likes of IMAX and all the RPX, ETX, XD, etc of the industry by saying that it's the "ultimate moviegoing experience."
The single projector 3D processes are just not suitable for large screens. This is essentially the only separator between standard theaters and certain premium priced big screen theaters. They need 2 projectors to do 3D reasonably well on a big screen. As dim as some 3D shows can be on even regular sized screens one could make a good argument that dual projector systems need to be used in a lot more auditoriums. And why not? Customers are already paying a hefty premium for 3D in the standard sized houses.
With film, it was a whole lot easier and more simple to draw a line between standard and large format projection. With "digital" the situation is only getting more confusing for customers. I don't see companies like Real-D helping simplify this mess either. They may further pollute the problem IMAX largely created.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 07-02-2013 02:24 PM
A steadily decreasing percentage of people have experienced what true "large format" is like. How many people have seen an IMAX movie in a huge IMAX screen? Probably more than those who have seen an epic movie in 70mm on a suitably wide screen. I think if you ask people what "large format" means to them, they'll respond with an IMAX screen, which will usually be an MPX LieMax screen and not even one of the original large screens. That's the segment I think RealD is going after here.
Aside from the challenges that RealD faces, one could see their play from two different perspectives:
- A successful company looking to expand their brand into new categories
- A company diversifying its portfolio in an attempt to stay relevant should their existing core product diminish in the marketplace
I think RealD has done an amazing job of getting their brand out in front of people. They've almost gotten to the point of associating "RealD" and "3D" to the point of "Dolby" and "Surround". If 3D starts to decline, it makes sense to expand into other areas so that they aren't a one-trick pony.
I will be interesting to see where they go with this, but what I've seen so far, it will not make a big impact on the industry.
Personally, I'd prefer if they would take the approach of "Size Matters Not" and go for quality over quantity. Make it great, then make it big (if they can).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 07-03-2013 06:30 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
The theater is just taking a HDTV resolution image and blowing it up bigger. That's all.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The single projector 3D processes are just not suitable for large screens. This is essentially the only separator between standard theaters and certain premium priced big screen theaters. They need 2 projectors to do 3D reasonably well on a big screen. As dim as some 3D shows can be on even regular sized screens one could make a good argument that dual projector systems need to be used in a lot more auditoriums. And why not? Customers are already paying a hefty premium for 3D in the standard sized houses.
quote: Bobby Henderson
With film, it was a whole lot easier and more simple to draw a line between standard and large format projection. With "digital" the situation is only getting more confusing for customers. I don't see companies like Real-D helping simplify this mess either. They may further pollute the problem IMAX largely created.
Bobby, I am not sure if you get what is driving the marketplace for cinemas right now. It is not resolution and won't be for a while. It is the premium experience in which people are willing to pay for, and the experience is just not resolution related. Eventually, once 4K and possible higher frame rate become popular, 4K will be added to this experience. People are seeking out experiences such as D-Box, IMAX, VIP, AVX (or whatever your area has) and then just standard 3D, this is the changing face of the cinema experience at the current time, right now resolution is not a factor in what people are willing to pay for.
In my area, when you attend an IMAX or a AVX screening, you get an experience you sre not getting in a standard theatre, with IMAX you are getting reserved seating, a unique sound and speaker layout, no corporate trailers, no pre-show ads, and upgraded seats. You are also getting two projectors with that conversion thing they have and you sometimes get the unique IMAX ratio. And for the most part, with IMAX or AVX you usually get the largest screen in complex. Now some people actually feel that these things are worth the premium, I don't really care for it and you have made it clear you do not.
Once Cineplex started offering reserve seating with AVX, IMAX jumped on board with reserved seating.
The only reason why I would pick IMAX over non-IMAX is that they have reserved seating, or I will just go on a quiet night. To be honest, I would probably go to more movies if they made reserve seating in every theatre, and I would seek out and watch 35mm over digital.
What was interesting was that Cineplex charged a $3 premium for 70mm The Master, but did people really care?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-04-2013 12:21 PM
Bottom line, I go to IMAX and an willing to pay premium only because they've got two projectors and their 3D image is brighter than any other theatre around here and I'll only go for 3D movies where brightness is such a bitch at standard theatres. And at least here at the Regal LieMAX in Brooklyn, it's not reserved seats and they DO have preshow gack; would I rather they not, sure and if I were king, they wouldn't; for $17 a ticket, they would have curtains too....and a usher massage me during the preshow. I ONLY go to the LieMAX for their demonstrably brighter 3D image, otherwise not a chance.
The immersive experience as it's call is nothing new (just newly coined nomenclature); it's been around since three panel Cinerama. And you are right Marcel, it really is simply a matter of sitting so the screen fills most of your vision. That has always been the way I watch movies since I first saw THIS IS CINERAMA when I was a kid; THAT was immersive (times 3) and ever since I try to get an approximation of that same effect by sitting where my peripheral vision pretty much included the far right and left sides of the screen...any screen in any theatre. Sit in the back rows and you might as well be watching a 19in TV set in some of these multiplex boxes. And, if I venture out to see a movie in a cinema, I know which houses have decent presentation, a decent size screen and brightness. And I ALWAYS go at the tail-end of a run after the unwashed have lost their fleeting interest in it, and I go on a Monday or Tuesday night for the last show -- then I don't need reserved seats...I pick wherever I want. Other than that, they can have their "experience."
By the way, this gives you some insight into why I was sooo incredibly put off of the first digital, when I sitting really close to the screen in my usual spot and here comes this image from the first non-DCI, 1.3K digital presentation and I am watching aghast at globs of blocky pixels and garish cartoon color and no so little detail that hair looked like globs of paint on people's heads, yet I'm hearing the digivangelists saying it was better than film. Well maybe ten years later it might be "better" in some ways, but 10 years ago? Not if you had eyes. As far as I was concerned, trying to get my "immersive experience" in the forth and fifth rows with digital, I figured they would need to hand out free barf bags with every ticket. Of course, had I been sitting a mile away, it might have looked better; as I said, it's all about relative size and where you are sitting.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic