|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Movie-Theater Chains Take On IMAX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 12-30-2013 07:33 PM
So let's try this again.
The media is starting to comment on more of Premium Large Screen expansion. I would assume the box office reports will eventually report on premium large screen averages as well as IMAX averages.
Premium Large Format
“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” and “Iron Man 2 are pushing Hollywood to another record-breaking year at the box office.
But moviegoers didn’t just flip for Katniss Everdeeen and Tony Stark. The reason that the business hit a new high-water mark goes beyond a handful of blockbusters.
Older audiences turned out in force, “Gravity“ reminded ticket-buyers about the power of IMAX and 3D, and horror movies proved that people prefer getting scared in packs.
That’s the good news. Before studio executives pop the champagne, it’s also worth noting that 2013 marked the release of some of the biggest bombs in film history - a murderer’s row of duds including “R.I.P.D.“ and “The Lone Ranger“ that left moviegoers asking, “why?“
To guard against another series of write-downs and lost profits, TheWrap has cooked up six essential take-aways from the year that was. It’s a prescription studios should consider following to the letter, otherwise the next “After Earth“ could be yours.
HALLOWEEN ISN’T THE ONLY TIME FOR HORROR
Horror films were among the year’s most consistent box office performers, as studios discovered that audiences like to get scared whatever the season. Not so long ago, horror was a genre that was largely confined to Halloween, but “The Conjuring,“ “The Purge,“ “Mama“ and “Insidious : Chapter 2 all opened at different points of the fall, winter and summer, drawing crowds of moviegoers looking to get frightened.
But the genre has become important in other ways. These films have some of the widest profit margins in the business, and are frequently produced for a fraction of what most films cost to make. Indeed, “Insidious” producer Jason Blum has become a phenomenon because of his low cost, high thrills formula and it’s being widely emulated throughout the industry.
“The Purge” and “Insidious: Chapter 2,” both of which Blum produced, cost a mere $3 million and $5 million to produce, and made $89.3 million and $160.4 million worldwide, respectively. Films without Blum’s fingerprints, still had his DNA. For instance, “The Conjuring” required just $20 million to shoot and brought in $316.7 million in global ticket sales.
Horror films are social experiences. Even in an age where the internet provides a cornucopia of entertainment options that are instantly available, scary movies still entice ticket buyers to turn off the iPhone, meet up with friends and hit the multiplex. After all, it always helps to have an arm nearby to grab in fright.
THE BIGGER PICTURE
The recipe for major box-office success traditionally has been to score with “four quadrants” - men and women, younger and older. But big screens have never been bigger than they were in 2013, and may be creating a “fifth quadrant.”
Moreover, films such as “Gravity,” with its vast outer space vistas, reminded viewers of the format’s power.
Eight of the top-grossing movies globally were screened in IMAX and domestically, the format on average accounted for 15 percent of opening weekend grosses - up 35 percent from last year. IMAX was even bigger overseas, and is in the forefront of China’s booming market, which is projected to grow by 36 percent this year. IMAX’s grosses will be up by 55 percent and it recently cut a deal with Chinese exhibition giant Wanda that could add 120 more screens.
It’s not just Imax. Premium Large Format screens brought in $223 million this year, a 23 percent hike from last year, and all of the top 20 films played in the format. Grosses at Cinemark, the largest PLF provider, were up 14 percent domestically and 19 percent globally.
So, settle in, grab your popcorn and get blown away.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-30-2013 11:07 PM
quote: Scott Jentsch
I'll raise my hand to counter that statement. Since 1995, The BigScreen Cinema Guide (which I publish) has provided information about what the various theaters are offering for each presentation (digital sound, stadium seating, digital cinema, THX, Open Caption, AVX/ETX/RPX/etc.
I forgot about your web site. It's bookmarked in my copy of Google Chrome now. Nevertheless, there was something to be said for the look of a big city newspaper ad with a couple dozen to several dozen theaters in a market playing a movie and being able to see in print what theaters had what. The NY and LA papers did it best, often because they had the largest ads. I used to clip a lot of those ads, particularly when 70mm was involved. I haven't clipped any newspaper movie ads since the 1990s.
quote: Scott Jentsch
The best tool a chain wanting to leverage their PLF over IMAX has is information. It's the basics of marketing: what makes your product better and/or different than the competition?
The problem is none of the competitors involved (IMAX and its rival premium big screen theaters) are doing that. At best, they're only giving partial information rather than a full account about the projection format and sound format being used. Full disclosure isn't in the interest of IMAX or anyone else running premium big screen theaters.
I usually have to visit this web site to see for sure if a movie's DCP is 2K or 4K. Most theaters don't list the resolution of their digital projectors. IMAX is the only premium big screen concept that you know for sure has two projectors. It's not easy at all to tell which of the theater chain based premium big screen concepts have dual projectors. Very few of them say they have dual projectors.
The same problem goes for the sound. I can look at the web sites for Cinemark, Carmike and several other big chains and find little if anything listed about the sound format used in their premium big screen theaters or standard priced houses. Is the sound 5.1 or 7.1? Is a special format like Auro or Dolby Atmos used? I looked up one of Carmike's "Big D" theaters in Illinois. Supposedly it's equipped with Dolby Atmos, but you would never know looking at Carmike's web site (Frozen featuring a Dolby Atmos mix was playing on that screen when I checked).
These theater chains are expecting customers to do exactly what IMAX expects: just trust the brand name and not concern one's self with any of the specifics that really determine a lot of the value (or lack thereof) in that high priced premium theater ticket.
quote: Lyle Romer
To light the screen size they needed 70mm film. To get the aspect ratio they wanted dictated the number of perfs per frame. They ended up with the resolution due to the size the frame ended up being. No human can possibly resolve the 11k resolution of the IMAX film unless you are WAY too close to the screen.
Don't underestimate human vision. It may not be as sharp as an eagle's eyesight, but it is pretty amazing.
True IMAX and special venue documentaries filmed for that format have used IMAX properly. The giant format screen is meant to fill peripheral vision. Imagery has to be framed with a lot of headroom and plenty of space on the ends. The audience is really supposed to be focusing near the center of the screen. IMAX movies shot for dome screens have to take this extra headroom approach to an extreme.
Hollywood movies are rarely ever composed for giant format special venue screens. They sure as hell aren't edited for giant format screens either. True IMAX movies would hold shots for extended amounts of time. Hollywood movies are rife with fast paced, music video style editing. Add in some shaky cam for good measure. That kind of approach makes action more difficult to follow on a giant screen.
That's something theater operators need to consider when they talk about building new premium theaters with screens upwards of 100' wide. Just because the white paper for a new 4K digital projector says it can illuminate a screen that big doesn't mean it should.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 12-31-2013 12:35 AM
quote: Lyle Romer
One comment about the "real" 15/70 IMAX. I think the resolution was an accident. They were going for a huge, immersive picture that was brightly lit. They wanted the more square aspect ratio to have the height to the image so that the sky/horizon became a part of the experience.
I don't think IMAX stumbled up the resolution by accident, they always knew what they were doing. I have a membership to SMPTE and if you go back into some of the documents and journals produced by IMAX in the early days, you get and idea what they defined IMAX to be.
A few things to consider:
1. IMAX described themselves as providing a "high fidelity" image and "high fidelity" sound.
2. While the 15/70 was for a high resolution picture, very little grain and a sharply defined image was the goal. There was very little discussion about high resolution. The term "K" was not discussed. Also, having a stable image was important.
3. The intention was for the audience member was to be able to look up, down, left and right and eye movement was intended. The whole idea of the "pit" area was for the audience member to look down, because the person would look down, they would then more than likely look up and left and right. IMAX conversion theatres of the present day do not have a pit area.
4. Believe it or not, (I am sure some of the members here will flame what I am about to say), it was documented by IMAX in the early 80's that the most important factor (according to IMAX) of an IMAX presentation was for screen/viewing angle relations. The farthest seat was very close to the screen.
5. IMAX did use terms such as "In the movie" or "In the picture" or something alone those lines, it has been a while since I have read some of the documents.
6. The standard was for a 12,000 WATT lamp, that would later change.
7. The smallest 15/70 screen was about 21x33 feet (105 seats) and the largest did not clear 100 feet, it was around 95 feet (980 seats).
8. Sound was 6 tracks, a sub was usually present but not always installed.
9. Another thing IMAX was going for was to remove "Clues" that you were watching a movie.
10. IMAX actually tested a prototype screen that would retract into the roof.
PM me if you want some more info. If you get yourself a membership, the information is all there at SMPTE.
quote: Manny Montes
I think there is going to be plenty of space for PLFs and IMAX digital in the marketplace, the trend that some theaters are including both an IMAX and their PLF under the same roof.
I also think that some people come to see the 7pm show of XYZ movie, not because it is IMAX or a PLF but because their kid wants to see the showing of XYZ movie or the showtime works perfectly with their schedule, and on the other hand you have people who call and want to see it on the "biggest screen", there are different strokes for different folks and I think that hopefully competition in the marketplace to IMAX digital and with every company having a PLF of their own should only increase competition and hopefully advance technology and result in more quality presentations for consumers.
Great post!
quote: Lyle Romer
it will be interesting to see how much of a noticeable difference there is between 15/70 IMAX and 4k laser projection IMAX.
The new Barco projection system will be very close to the original 15/70 aspect ratio. The IMAX digital 3D camera (not sure if it is being used yet) will use existing camera lenses from the 15/70 film cameras. The sensor will be almost the same size as a 15/70 film frame. I really would like to know if the current 2x2K IMAX set up is able to be upgraded to 4K?
quote: Bobby Henderson
Nevertheless, there was something to be said for the look of a big city newspaper ad with a couple dozen to several dozen theaters in a market playing a movie and being able to see in print what theaters had what. The NY and LA papers did it best, often because they had the largest ads. I used to clip a lot of those ads, particularly when 70mm was involved. I haven't clipped any newspaper movie ads since the 1990s.
I agree with you, the newspapers ads from the 1970's and 80's were very good at informing the public of what was at a particular theatre. At least in my territory it was. A moviegoer had a good idea of what a theatre had in such tech such as 70mm or Dolby Stereo etc, things went downhill in the 90's.
Today, it is very difficult to find out what a particular theatre has, the newspapers are useless. Unless you go to Cineplex.com, there is no way of knowing if the sound is Dolby Atmos,or if there RealD 3D, Dolby 3D or Dolby surround 7.1. I don't think the theatres in my area will ever differentiate between 2K and 4K presentations.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-31-2013 07:00 AM
Resolution wise... 35mm 1.85 has the approximate resolution of 4K. The notion of 4K comparing favorably to 15/70 is a false one. Now there is a point that I feel increasing resolution (or film image size) will yield diminished returns. Where that is is difficult to define since there are many factors into how an image is perceived.
5/70 was/is my favorite image quality bang for the buck on the various sized screens I've seen (and I prefer it even on small screens). I haven't seen a digital image, 4K or otherwise compare favorably to it. 15/70, while clearly a larger image area and a significantly higher resolution for digital to match benefits a ratio of movie (1.4) that does not lend itself to modern "Hollywood" movies. Perhaps for documentaries...but those rarely benefit from increased resolution. In fact, I've always liked documentaries on 16mm...but that is just me.
For the type of show that classic IMAX has had in museums and other special venues 15/70 allowed them to place the audience close enough where the image was larger than ones normal vision. Smaller film formats would allow one to see the technology (grain for film) to a much greater degree. Note, it wasn't just the film, IMAX also had a projection technology that allowed it to also put out a steadier picture than typical projection technologies. There is nothing in digital, at the moment, that will match its resolution, color and contrast and lasers are not going to change that nor are 4K projectors. Someday, maybe technology in digital will catch up with that...if people still want to see that kind of movie.
Laser projection brings nothing to the image resolution table...it brings light efficiency and possibly improved contrast ratio...something that the higher resolution digital projectors have had an issue with.
But back to my bugaboo with IMAX and its branding. Historically, IMAX has had no problem appending sub-names to its brand to differentiate its various forms. Originally, the domed theatres received the OmniMAX name...however that was later changed to IMAX-Dome. If your theatre ran 48fps, it was IMAX-HD. If you have a screen below the seats as well as the normal one...it was IMAX-Magic Carpet. They were not all just "IMAX" But with digital...why didn't they feel the need to brand the different venue? Or even IMAX-DMR. It was okay to promote something that was an improvement to the standard IMAX theatre...but if one could perceive it as a poor-stepchild to the standard theatre (A theatre that runs widescreen DMRed content or 2K digital content)...well perhaps we should just keep that a secret?
One has to squint pretty hard and look rather sideways to not come to the conclusion that IMAX actively wants to deceive its customers into thinking that their digital experience is comparable to their standard 15/70 experience (quality wise, if by no other metric). And I just don't get it. IMAX-Digital could have been a good promotion point that they could have claimed was a superior experience due to their DMR, dual projection....etc technologies. They don't have the slam-dunk with digital like they did with film where nobody but them was running 15/70 (IWERKS did but they were more than a blatant ripoff, right down to the projector).
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-31-2013 09:30 AM
quote: Steve Guttag
For the type of show that classic IMAX has had in museums and other special venues 15/70 allowed them to place the audience close enough where the image was larger than ones normal vision. Smaller film formats would allow one to see the technology (grain for film) to a much greater degree.
Features shot on smaller film formats (including 5/70mm) as well as video formats use compositional techniques similar to that of still photography -like the rule of thirds, golden spiral, etc. The movie frame is an important part of the composition. The frame is not something that is meant to fall completely out of the movie-goer's field of view.
Traditional 15/70 IMAX movies shouldn't be composed like that. One can apply something like a rule of thirds composition to the central area of interest in an IMAX film frame, but the overall composition has to be loose with considerable "bleed" off to the edges of the frame, left, right, top & bottom. In human vision we pay attention to what's in front of us and not so much to what's off on the sides of our peripheral vision. When an IMAX shot is properly composed the viewer won't feel like he is sitting way too close to the screen, but the screen is filling much or all of his peripheral vision.
With that being said, I don't have so much of a problem with digital-only big screens being considerably smaller than true IMAX screens. The composition and editorial pace of Hollywood features works on screens only so big. The fixed pixel grid limitations of 2K and 4K projectors require movie screens to be only so big. If the screen is too big the projector has to be deliberately tweaked out of focus to hide the pixel grid. As a result you get soft image quality with no tack-sharp "pop" to it like you would see with good film projection, particularly 70mm.
quote: Steve Guttag
But back to my bugaboo with IMAX and its branding. Historically, IMAX has had no problem appending sub-names to its brand to differentiate its various forms. Originally, the domed theatres received the OmniMAX name...however that was later changed to IMAX-Dome. If your theatre ran 48fps, it was IMAX-HD. If you have a screen below the seats as well as the normal one...it was IMAX-Magic Carpet.
There was also IMAX Solido -I think that was 3D on a domed screen. I remember the Race for Atlantis ride at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas being IMAX Dome 3D, but I don't think they called it "Solido."
The IMAX theaters location map on the IMAX web site is willing to draw separate distinctions for IMAX Dome theaters and 15/70 theaters without 3D capability, but if they're 3D capable they're just blanketed with the generic "IMAX" term. It doesn't matter if it's a museum-based 15/70 3D theater or a modest sized auditorium in an AMC or Regal multiplex (with a smaller, different aspect ratio screen); they're treated on the location map and movie marketing as if they're all the same.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 12-31-2013 10:26 AM
quote: Scott Jentsch
I agree with the original topic of non-IMAX PLF's becoming more prevalent as time goes on, and probably to the detriment of IMAX.
By the end of 2014, AMC will have 80+ premium large format screens. They currently have 28 screens.
Cineplex in Canada is aggressively adding AVX and VIP to a good number of locations. Sometime in 2014, Cineplex will open up their first all VIP theatre complete with valet parking. It will be somewhere around $23 per ticket.
quote: Scott Jentsch
Each year, that past reputation becomes less of a factor, because each year, less and less people will have experienced or will remember seeing a movie in a classic IMAX theater.
I think it is a little too early to tell, but the numbers from the last 15/70 theatre in my area show that since the conversion to digital IMAX, the box office performance for IMAX released titles has decreased at this location. It has only been four months and there is no Skyfall or Dark Knight Rises in 2013, but Hobbit 2 is showing a decrease at this theatre compare to Hobbit 1. This theatre also installed a PLF screen to compete with the IMAX theatre and movies do open on both. I have no interest ever attending this theatre unless they put the 15/70 back in.
The buzz for this theatre was that it was the last remaining 15/70 location in my area. Tickets were always difficult to get and you almost always had to reserve the tickets ahead of time or go to the box office a few days before. This is where I saw all my 15/70 IMAX presentations.
quote: Scott Jentsch
As long as it has some value it will be used, though.
From what I understand, the studio does not pay a fee for a Hollywood movie to be DMR'd, the cost is on IMAX as an incentive for the studio to approach IMAX. There is also no payment for the IMAX name on trailers, posters etc etc. Its like a big partnership but the studios bears the cost of 70mm prints. But you are right, as long as the studios see value in the brand, they will continue to use it.
I don't there is much more room for IMAX in North America. I think at this point they are in all the major markets. In my territory there are a few IMAX locations that are not performing.
quote: Scott Jentsch
I do think that it would be advantageous from a branding perspective for all these PLF efforts to have a single brand name, I don't think it will ever happen.
I think the common name is now "Premium Large Format". I think it would be easy for the studios to cut a DCP trailer with the tagline "See it in AVX" for one chain or "See it in AMC Prime" at another. Or the chains could just add "See it in AVX " for 2-3 seconds after the trailer. Somebody will eventually do either or.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic