|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Movie-Theater Chains Take On IMAX
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-26-2013 10:44 PM
Terry, you may be annoyed by all the "bitching" from me and many others in this forum about IMAX Digital. I'm sure I'm far from being alone in saying I'm sick and tired of you being such a blind, insufferable LieMAX fanboy. If you want to be so dismissive of my points and the points of others as "bitching" then it's fully fair for me to dismiss your comments as cheerleading from a fanboy. It's either that or just plain trolling.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, that is not exactly the case and I am not ignoring that.
Yes you are ignoring it, whether Mike Blakesley, I or someone else says it.
When Mike made the point earlier you used the "I'm rubber, you're glue" ploy redirecting the ignorant thing back at him. When Ken Lacker defended Mike's point of view you spit out some anecdotal stats about three IMAX theaters in your area, as if that microcosm is representative of all IMAX Digital multiplex theater builds. Mike's claim is pretty valid while your stats of IMAX theaters are really not the average.
Most IMAX Digital theaters are indeed set in the highest seating count room in a given multiplex. A movie playing on the IMAX screen will almost always get the best show times while the same movie on another screen in the complex will be given the off peak times. These same rules are true for other premium priced big screen theaters.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I know you have huge issues with IMAX and their new digital presentations, but seriously, it has been five years, can you not move on from it?
I've made my own conclusions about IMAX Digital, but that won't prevent me from talking about it as the issue crops up in other topics, like you pissing on Dolby Atmos every chance you get while extolling the virtues of LieMAX at the same time.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Sadly, Secret Life of Walter Mitty cannot be seen in Atmos in my territory. Even worse was the fact that it was originally slated for Atmos in AVX and then at the last minute it was pulled for Wolf Of Wall Street it was advertised all week as in Atmos, they showed the Atmos trailer in front of Wolf Of Wall Street yesterday, not sure if the movie has a Atmos mix but if it doesn't then we have some pretty poor marketing on both Dolby and Cineplex's part.
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty indeed has a Dolby Atmos mix, with Skip Lievsay (Gravity) doing the re-recording mixing work. Unfortunately, the movie has received less than stellar critics reviews. Fearing poor customer turnout many theater chains chose, at the last minute, not to put the movie on their premium priced big screens. The Wolf of Wall Street was the best alternative.
This situation is NOT at all the fault of Dolby. Blaming Dolby for this situation is absolutely stupid. I was curious about the Atmos mix for this movie, but Harkins Theaters chose not to put it on their Cine Capri screens either. I don't blame them for that since this movie may be a real dud. The only people to blame for that is the people who made the movie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 12-27-2013 05:28 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Considering the cost of Atmos, Dolby may have to get creative in helping theaters finance Atmos installations if they want Atmos screen counts in the thousands rather than hundreds.
What I think they should do is similar to Real-D on a much cheaper scale. Dolby should do a deal where they install the Atmos system and the theater charges a $1 upcharge for Atmos movies with 75% going to Dolby and 25% to the theatre.
Before that split the studios would also get some cut that Dolby would have to work out.
Even if the Studio took 50%, Dolby's cut would be .375 per admission. If the install costs Dolby $30,000 (I pulled this out of my ass but since Dolby is doing the install they would pay cost for their processors) it would take 80,000 admissions to pay for it.
That translates to 400 shows with 200 people. Obviously for something like this to work, only theatres with a minimum level of business would qualify.
Dolby's benefit is two fold. First they get thousands of installations. Second, they have an ongoing revenue stream. They will need a support staff but once the equipment/install financing is paid for they stand to make a good long term profit if they end up with 10,000+ screens.
While interest rates are still so low, now would be the time for a program like this.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-27-2013 07:57 AM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
What kills me is that some people on here are so bothered by it that they can't see some of the benefits of it, it gets really annoying when people just turn it into a bitch session about moving from 15/70 to digital. Then they start to find excuses for the success of it, they give the lame as excuse that is in the perfect time slot, well if it sucks then people will not pay the premium for it. Perhaps there are some movie goers that actually like it.
So if we just stop complaining, the problem will fix itself? IMAX hasn't just deceived their customers, they also inflicted damage to their original exibitors, that invested into the IMAX brand name as a distinguishing factor. Even after 5 years, we still do not have an official name for their sub-par Digital IMAX installations and 15/70 is all but extinct now.
For me, IMAX has become something like a "discount" THX, you largely know what you get, someone at least makes sure that the stuff is regularly calibrated, but you need to pay extra for it...
I do not consider Digital IMAX superior to a regular screening, in a halfway decent theater, because it just isn't:
- Many stadium seated theaters offer wall-to-wall screens, if I want an in-your-face picture, I'm just going to sit closer to the screen. Digital IMAX doesn't even offer the biggest picture in many cases, because many of those wall-to-wall screens are in scope format and many movies luckily still are shot in this superior aspect ratio. Also, I don't understand the fuzz about having the biggest screen, the design of the room matters more than the actual size of the screen if you want to get close to the picture.
- Masking has become some kind of luxury in the last 5 or so years, but with IMAX you're sure as hell there is no movable masking whatsoever. (Yeah, there seem to be a few limited venues that do have movable masking, but your average multiplex IMAX doesn't.)
- An increasing number of theaters around here are switching to 4K projectors, while there still is just a limited amount of 4K content available, a 4K projector helps to get rid of that ugly pixel grid, if you're sitting close to the screen. All IMAX venues around here have visible pixel grids even if you're sitting just about halfway. Also, their subtitling system just plainly sucks, something messes with their anti-aliasing in low contrast situations, leading to extremely distinguishable pixels on screen around the subtitles.
- Lack of brightness is usually only an issue in 3D presentations, big theaters around here already use dual projector setups for 3D presentations and RealD XL setups for the medium sized ones, without asking for a premium.
- Those old-school linear polarizers that IMAX uses just suck, tilt your head just slightly and ghosting becomes a major issue.
- The sound quality usually is OK, but also far too loud. A decently implemented and calibrated 7.1 surround system offers a superior sound experience to Digital IMAX.
quote: Lyle Romer
What I think they should do is similar to Real-D on a much cheaper scale. Dolby should do a deal where they install the Atmos system and the theater charges a $1 upcharge for Atmos movies with 75% going to Dolby and 25% to the theatre.
I'd rather wait until Atmos becomes more affordable. Maybe it needs a bit more serious competition to get there, just like DTS and SDDS did in the Dolby Digital days.
And to be honest, Atmos is a real nice upgrade, but I do not really consider it mind blowing and primarily offers advantages in real big auditoria, where surround coverage is usually flaky. In a smaller room, a good 7.1 setup works just fine.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-27-2013 12:23 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
So if we just stop complaining, the problem will fix itself?
The funny thing is the features and limitations of IMAX Digital are absolutely on topic with this thread which Terry himself started. He may not like people "bitching" about IMAX Digital, but he asked for it (just like he has in other discussion threads bringing up this topic).
The larger, possibly worse issue is how movie theater chains may be taking IMAX' own deceptive game one or more steps farther with their one private label big screen theaters. IMAX Digital sure as hell ain't 15-perf 70mm. But you at least have a reasonably good idea of what's going into the theater in terms of projectors and sound. That isn't the case with all these private label big screen theaters.
IMAX isn't going to tell us any of this stuff in the form of competitive advertising. They'll anger their theater chain partners by doing that. The theater chains are kind of pulling an IMAX style trick in letting customers believe all these private label premium screens are all equipped the same way.
It's going to take work of independent parties to clear up this mess if they're in any position to do so. It usually takes a visit to the booth to tell and not every theater is exactly into giving just anyone booth tours, particularly if they feel they need to hide certain shortcomings about just what it is they're selling to the movie-goers.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
For me, IMAX has become something like a "discount" THX, you largely know what you get, someone at least makes sure that the stuff is regularly calibrated, but you need to pay extra for it...
One big difference with THX: it didn't result in a surcharge being tacked onto the ticket price.
I had no problem paying extra to see a movie in real IMAX. That is an expensive process. Today, customers are being expected to pay the same or even higher level of surcharge for a digital replacement that honestly does not show any better of an image than what you see on a normal theater screen. Brighter 3D via dual projectors is about the only benefit.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'd rather wait until Atmos becomes more affordable. Maybe it needs a bit more serious competition to get there, just like DTS and SDDS did in the Dolby Digital days.
Atmos has a credible rival in Auro 3D 11.1. Cinemark, Carmike and some other chains have signed deals with Barco & Auro to install those systems. I think Dolby Atmos is on an entirely different level of superiority, but the fact Auro is developing a theatrical install base (and getting some Hollywood studio title support) should concern Dolby.
quote: Lyle Romer
If that is the case, then the format is DOA outside of "Acronym" screens. If moviegoers won't pay $1 per ticket for Atmos, they aren't going to drive an extra 5 or 10 miles to go to a theatre with it (it will cost more in gas than the proposed upcharge).
There are some, but not many, standard priced theater screens equipped with Atmos. Nevertheless, as expensive as Atmos is it makes the best financial sense to put it in high seating capacity auditoriums. Anymore, those rooms have acronym labels and surcharges.
I think Atmos is far too cumbersome for a home theater environment. 5.1 surround is a big enough hassle for many home viewers to install. We wouldn't be seeing all these "sound bar" products otherwise. 7.1 is a bigger chore. Even if a basic 9.1 Atmos-branded setup was available for home theater I doubt very many people would screw around with that many speakers. Atmos is best for commecial theater environments.
quote: Lyle Romer
The cost of the processor can come down but there will always be the cost of the amps and speakers that need to be added. The Dolby Digital days were different. Originally, "Dolby Stereo Digital" was intended to replace 70mm 6-track on "Premium" screens.
Dolby didn't count on DTS appearing on the scene with Jurassic Park and an entirely different philosophy: any theater should have digital surround sound.
I don't see a problem with Dolby continuing to roll out Atmos into premium priced big screen theaters at a somewhat slow yet steady pace. Any of those theaters need a fleet of amplifiers regardless of what sound format they're using. Dolby will need help from other hardware manufacturers to make it easier and cheaper to install Atmos in smaller, standard priced auditoriums. Cinema power amplifiers typically only have 1 or 2 channels of amplification. Some have 4 channels, but at lower power levels. It's not going to be feasible to have several refrigerator sized racks full of amplifiers powering a sound system for an auditorium of only 300 seats.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-27-2013 12:29 PM
quote: Lyle Romer
The cost of the processor can come down but there will always be the cost of the amps and speakers that need to be added.
Sure, but it would already solve one part of the "puzzle": Right now, the CP850 itself is already prohibitively expensive for smaller deployments. And, like already mentioned, in a small room, you will not need like 40 channels, probably not even 20. And DTS didn't solve that problem either, if you wanted multi-channel surround sound, you had to invest in your B-chain. Although Dolby currently wants you to replace your existing surround speakers and amps with more powerful ones for Atmos, you could ask yourself if this is really necessary, especially for those smaller rooms? And some kind of investment is to be expected to keep at least a step ahead of the home cinema stuff.
quote: Lyle Romer
The development of the DA20 and related price reduction seemed to be an "oh shit" reaction to DTS which was designed from the get go to be low cost and just thrown on a bunch of screens to advertise digital sound.
Sounds like competition at work. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) As soon as somebody releases a real, more affordable competitor to Atmos (and, Barco, I'm not looking at you with your stupid 11.1 format) that is embraced by some major movie studios (make it easy to export from Pro Tools), Dolby will be forced to come with an answer. Either by releasing a lightweight version of the CP850 or significantly reducing the price of that model.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 12-27-2013 01:01 PM
quote: Pravin Ratnam
Terry , I am actually one of those who has gotten over the film to digital transition.
And so have I. I just wish some of the members would just stop crying about it every time they comment about IMAX.
quote: Pravin Ratnam
even Liemax looks very good to critics like me because of the screen brightness and sound. But PLFs are gaining in traction.
I agree, the digital IMAX presentation do look better than the average digital projection showing, even better than AVX. PLF's gaining traction would be a better word than momentum.
quote: Pravin Ratnam
Imax brought this on themselves not just because they went digital, but how they went digital by reducing standards of what a large format experience is and not trying to rebrand it as IMAX digital or something like that
I don't disagree with this, but the facts remain as Edward said there has been a near universal adoption by the general audience. That is why I amazed that some just can't move on.
quote:
I do not consider Digital IMAX superior to a regular screening, in a halfway decent theater, because it just isn't:
Fair enough, but that does not mean I have to agree with this. The acoustics, size of the screen, viewing angles and screen brightness at the IMAX at my local multiplex is far superior to the standard theatres in the same building. Even the seats are nicer This IMAX theatre would be purpose built from the ground design.
quote: Lyle Romer
If moviegoers won't pay $1 per ticket for Atmos, they aren't going to drive an extra 5 or 10 miles to go to a theatre with it (it will cost more in gas than the proposed upcharge).
Cineplex charges a surcharge for Atmos, they just roll it into the cost of AVX.
quote: Lyle Romer
Therefore, how is there a business case to install it at all?
From what I have seen, I don't think there is much of a business case for it. I still strongly believe Dolby needs to get into the naming of the theatre, they have a Dolby 3D system and if they were to marry the sound to a good picture presentation I think Atmos would take off. I think Dolby did the right thing by buying the naming rights to the Kodak theatre.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
And to be honest, Atmos is a real nice upgrade, but I do not really consider it mind blowing and primarily offers advantages in real big auditoria, where surround coverage is usually flaky.
I totally agree, this is why I think Atmos will just be as relevant as Dolby 7.1 Surround which is good enough for me.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-27-2013 02:41 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Based on my personal experience, the smaller the auditorium the better the presentation. As you start going bigger in auditorium and screen size I find the quality starts to get worse.
That's exactly what you can expect from the current state of the industry: The bigger the auditorium, the bigger the challenges to get it right and most multiplex chains aren't really known for their sophistication. This industry could really use something like a modern version of THX that gets some independently certified quality back into the business.
quote: Bobby Henderson
While I don't like Auro 3D it's still a rival in the theatrical space in that it has a fancy brand name instead of the generic vibe of LPCM and it costs significantly less than Atmos to install.
Releasing a new multi-channel format with static channel mappings as of 2012 was just plain backwards. This pricing advantage will also be primarily in the A-chain, you still need to provide for 12 distinctive channels, no matter what size your auditorium is.
quote: Bobby Henderson
How many patents has Dolby filed for Atmos and object oriented sound playback? I'm thinking if any rival company is going to challenge Dolby with a competing object oriented sound format they're going to be playing a hell of a lot of catch-up.
I've been advocating an open object based audio format for years, even before Dolby had a name for Atmos. Many computer games have done something very similar for years: mapping 3D sounds to distinctive channels yet the only innovation for sound formats was going from 6 distinctive channels to 8, etc. Dolby sure did file some patents for Atmos, most companies that invest in R&D do, but if it sticks is another matter. But Dolby isn't operating in a vacuum, others have been working on similar things for quite some time. Iosono, for example, sounds far superior to anything I've ever heard in Atmos, but that format doesn't seem to make it. Also, Dolby acquired immsound, that offered a system remarkably similar to Atmos, even before Atmos hit the market.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Regarding the price of the CP850, I'm sure that will come down over time. However, I think it's more critical for companies like QSC to develop amplifier systems that are far more Atmos-friendly. If you can fit 32 or 64 channels worth of amplification in just a couple refrigerator sized racks at a price that won't break the bank then Atmos will become more practical for less than giant sized theaters. I'm under the impression Dolby is working with other sound equipment manufacturers to do just that.
Dolby offers a Gigabit Ethernet based interface called Dolby Atmos Connect. The idea is that you can connect multi-channel amps (with built-in DA converters) directly via Ethernet, just like their DAC3201 does right now. You could probably even build a system based on active speakers using Atmos Connect as a bus-system, although the merits of active speakers have been discussed before and not everybody is in favor of those.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 17 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 15 16 17
|
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