|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Movie-Theater Chains Take On IMAX
|
|
|
|
|
Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008
|
posted 12-27-2013 03:40 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Actually my hypothesis requires the reverse of that. The less they care the more IMAX is screwed in the long term. If a big screen with loud sound is good enough then the movie chains will build fewer and fewer LieMAX theaters and build a lot more house-brand big screen theaters. And then they'll eventually dump IMAX just like they did THX.
That's a logical fallacy, Bobby. IMAX digital would not have gotten the mass acceptance from cinemagoers it inarguably has in the past five years if they cared as much about 15/70 as you and the other "LieMAX" haters.
And your retort ignores two major differences between IMAX and PFLs:
1) An IMAX Experience will be relatively the same from location to location, regardless of which chain one goes to.
2) IMAX is a universal brand, and has cross-chain marketing that RPX, XD, AVX and all those other alphabet soup formats can never have.
Recently, a Cinemark theatre in my area converted one of their houses to XD. I popped my head inside the converted theatre during a recent visit at this location, and I for one could not tell the difference from the theatre I had seen Skyfall in less than a year earlier. The screen dimensions looked exactly the same. The seats (which were admittedly very nice leather chairs) looked exactly the same. The overall setup of the houses seemed exactly the same. Now, I didn't watch a movie in that converted house, but the point is that the theatre showed no signs of external improvement over its pre-conversion counterpart. It looked like every other non-XD house in the building. When one walks in to an IMAX digital house, one instantly knows this is not the same as the other theatres in the building.
When Rave did an IMAX conversion at my previous theatre two and a half years ago, guests who had seen movies in that theatre saw the changes without them being pointed out. They saw the ceiling had been raised to fit the screen. They saw that several rows had been removed from the front of the auditorium, that the screen had been moved forward several feet, and that the closest seat to the screen was still farther away from the screen than it had been before the conversion. They saw it wasn't as massive as the IMAX screen at the Metreon (the closest 15/70 house, and tied with the Lincoln Square for the largest IMAX screen in America) and they were still impressed. Only a very minuscule percentage of people complained about it being a "LieMAX" screen.
And that's cool.
To be completely honest, I was quite disappointed the first time I saw an IMAX digital presentation. It was Watchmen, and when I walked in to that theatre, I seriously thought to myself "What the f**k???? This isn't an IMAX theatre!!!!" But I stayed, in part because I used passes to get in and I wanted to see the movie. But I didn't become a convert to IMAX digital until I was working at a theatre that had it (see anecdote previous paragraph) and saw the daily positive reactions of the guests experiencing it.
Most people in America did not have regular access to 15/70 IMAX even at the height of its pre-digital conversion acceptance. Most people in America are not willing to drive a hundred miles or more to see a movie because it's being presented in 15/70 IMAX. It was too cost-prohibitive for there to be anything more than a handful of 15/70 houses built, and that cost factor was keeping IMAX from growing. In fact, it was sending them to bankruptcy, but we all already know that.
But to their credit, they didn't just say "Okay, two 2k projectors sitting next to each other. Done!" They heard the complaints from people like Bobby Henderson of Lawton, OK, who pointed out the resolution didn't remotely match the resolution of 15/70, and that the current digital projection technology couldn't provide a good picture if they tried to project it on a large 15/70 screen like the ones at Metreon and Lincoln Square. They kept pushing the boundaries of the technology, to come up with something that would be of a higher resolution and would look great on those largest 15/70 screens, and sometime in the next year, we'll see if they were successful.
If any chain wants to truly take on IMAX, they'll need to go beyond what IMAX can offer, and the introduction of AMC Prime is, for me, a step in the right direction. Not just a large screen experience but also Dolby Atmos AND THX Certification (yes, you read that right) AND those large comfy leather chairs. But converting a couple hundred houses to AMC Prime is going to take a massive level of capital to implement and it's going to take a massive effort of marketing.
You'll never see a snipe saying "See it in AMC Prime" at Regal or Cinemark, but you will see "See it in IMAX" at all three chains. And that's the distinct advantage IMAX has over all the PLFs, and very few chains are going to give up the advantage IMAX provides them until these PLFs are installed a majority of chain locations and have the mass acceptance with their guests that IMAX currently enjoys. The stakes are just too high to let go of something that is working now.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-27-2013 05:28 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Releasing a new multi-channel format with static channel mappings as of 2012 was just plain backwards.
The bigger problem I have with Auro is the audio channels are, arguably, reduced quality. The base 7.1 LPCM channels are dropped in bit depth. The remaining channels are compressed/encoded in Auro's proprietary format. This sounds like a step backwards into lossy territory. The channel mappings aren't standard in any respect to the DCI audio channel layout. Atmos sidesteps the entire issue, providing something that is a clear leap above 10.2, 11.1, etc. and maintaining lossless audio quality.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
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.
Doesn't Iosono's holographic sound setup require something like 300 or 400 speakers? It seemed like a very experimental setup as a proof of concept for what could be done with audio. In the end sound formats mostly live or die by the number of movies that are mixed in the process and equipped theaters able to play the mix. Iosono apparently couldn't get Hollywood studios and theaters to adopt their concept.
The situation with immSound and Dolby reminds me a little of what went on between DTS and the French LC Digital format. IIRC, DTS wound up buying LC Digital's patents after a court battle. Dolby bought immSound just as it was starting to get some movie support in Europe.
quote: Pravin Ratnam
Lyle, when I mentioned that charging a dollar for atmos alone is a DOA idea, it doesn't mean the theater cant keep doing what they are doing now where they charge a surcharge for a premium moviegoing experience and Atmos is just a big part of what makes it a premium experience.
The last time I visited Harkins' Cine Capri theater in Bricktown (by downtown Oklahoma City) I noticed they were actually charging $10 for shows in that house versus the $9 standard price for other non-3D shows. I doubt if they're sharing any of that dollar surcharge with Dolby.
quote: Steve Guttag
QSC already has 8 channel amps in a 2U space.
I had only looked at the THX-approved cinema amps from QSC. If an 8-channel amp was in there I must have missed it. I only saw 1, 2 and 4 channel amps on that page. Regarding placing the amp closer to the speakers, I never knew anyone did that. Where do they stick the amplifiers? Up in the ceiling? I suppose such a thing could be necessary in some of these new "boothless" theaters.
quote: Edward Havens
That's a logical fallacy, Bobby. IMAX digital would not have gotten the mass acceptance from cinemagoers it inarguably has in the past five years if they cared as much about 15/70 as you and the other "LieMAX" haters.
The fallacy is this notion that customers have accepted IMAX en masse. IMAX' pumped up theatrical gross numbers aren't all from people going out of their way to see a movie in The IMAX Experience. We've talked about other factors that absolutely come into play to sweeten those earnings numbers.
I'll also bet nearly all the people who are going out of their way to watch something in "IMAX" don't honestly know just what it is they're buying. They're there for the brand name and the illusion of superior quality.
quote: Edward Havens
And your retort ignores two major differences between IMAX and PFLs:
1) An IMAX Experience will be relatively the same from location to location, regardless of which chain one goes to.
2) IMAX is a universal brand, and has cross-chain marketing that RPX, XD, AVX and all those other alphabet soup formats can never have.
Edward, you clearly missed the part in my "retort" where I've been repeating your point #1 which I supposedly ignored. It's a situation of bad (LieMAX) and potentially even worse (the wannabe LieMAX house brand big screens).
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Cinemark has 91 of these "XD" theaters and I don't really know what the hell is in those theaters or if they're even consistently the same from one location to the next. Does Cinemark's XD theaters support dual projector 3D or is it just one projector showing dim 3D? I know the XD theaters vary in sound format. The XD screen in Plano, TX has Dolby Atmos. A few have Auro 3D 11.1. Most have 7.1 surround. But who can really tell according to their web site?
As far as brands go, IMAX has been taking a giant dump on theirs. The IMAX brand stopped meaning anything to me when they started pulling 15/70 projection systems out of their theaters. IMAX may have cross-chain marketing. But companies like Dolby have that too. One thing that IMAX isn't going to have: movies with the term "filmed in IMAX." Once Christopher Nolan is no longer able to push 15/65 cameras around on movie sets that will be the end of it.
With digital technology it's often a cruel numbers game where the lowest common denominator often wins. From the day IMAX started its push into digital territory I knew the company would be vulnerable to other theaters trying to do the same thing but cheaper. Now plenty of theater chains are doing just that.
Maybe IMAX can survive, co-exist or even succeed against this growing wave of private label big screen theaters. But it's going to take a lot more than IMAX trying to coast on its brand name in order to do so. A dual 4K laser projection system would be a good start. The current 2K thing really sucks. If it's in focus it's pixel jaggy. Most of the time it's deliberately de-focused and that looks just as bad. This same issue goes for any theater doing 2K on a huge screen. IMAX has to do something about that damned "laser aligned" sound system.
quote: Edward Havens
You'll never see a snipe saying "See it in AMC Prime" at Regal or Cinemark, but you will see "See it in IMAX" at all three chains.
The biggest problem is the see it in IMAX term doesn't mean anything. Occasionally some movie commercials will throw up the logos for the other fake large format theaters. World War Z did it. The Walter Mitty movie is promoting Cinemark's XD theaters in its commercials. None of that means anything either. It's only a matter of time before enough of the general public wakes up to that fact that it becomes a problem.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-27-2013 06:43 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
The bigger problem I have with Auro is the audio channels are, arguably, reduced quality. The base 7.1 LPCM channels are dropped in bit depth. The remaining channels are compressed/encoded in Auro's proprietary format.
Somebody could also just update SMPTE 428-3-2006 and add a clear definition for the still unused channels... Although it will probably hard for the industry to settle on a new standard, given the bureaucracy and different interests involved. And, obviously, that would require yet another DCP to be made for every release supporting this new format, but at least it would conform to a mostly open standard. Barco is just taking advantage of the notoriously slow moving decision making on that level, with their sub-par surround system.
I really hope Barco's initiative will eventually fail and a more sophisticated system, much more like Atmos will come along and get some traction, hopefully even using an open audio format.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Doesn't Iosono's holographic sound setup require something like 300 or 400 speakers?
Their current deployment supports up to 128 channels, so apparently, it doesn't require that amount of speakers to work. It does, however, require a very high speaker density. Although, the density I've seen in their setup, doesn't seem to dramatically exceed that of a recent Atmos install around here.
As far as I know, Dolby Atmos essentially uses an advanced form of panning to place sounds at the desired location, probably to keep the system compliant with lower density configurations. While the increased amount of speakers and the inclusion of height increases both the resolution and range of what can be achieved, it is still not really possible to create sounds that seem to emanate from within the room.
quote: Bobby Henderson
In the end sound formats mostly live or die by the number of movies that are mixed in the process and equipped theaters able to play the mix. Iosono apparently couldn't get Hollywood studios and theaters to adopt their concept.
Proprietary formats are a way for the industry to secure their monopoly on a certain technology. That's why Dolby, Iosono and Barco all have developed their own closed sound formats, but the industry as a whole would benefit from more open standards, just like the current LPCM implementation. I don't see any technical reasons why at least Atmos and Iosono could not use the same, open object based audio format. There is just a difference in how the actual sound is being "rendered", but in an object based format, that's the whole point: the decoder should apply the best possible strategy to "render" the sound on the given hardware.
But for all we know, the hardware in the current CP850 is sufficiently sophisticated to be capable of handling a sophisticated Wave Front Synthesis algorithm and it's just a matter of updating the firmware to enable those features for systems that have sufficient speaker density.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I personally don't really like the conversion, but I am spoiled with a perfect purpose built IMAX set up close by that has reserved seating that are comfy leatherette type. Only crap thing is that it is now digital.
Reserved seating and the type of seating being used have never been part of the IMAX package but are almost entirely left to the exhibitor.
And, on another note, their "patented design" failed to account for sufficient field of view in one of their conversions they did around here. If somebody tall sits in front of you, you better hope the movie is in scope rather than flat. The scope screen that was there before the conversion didn't have that basic deficiency. Also, that same theater has a few seats located BEHIND the IMAX surround speakers. Those seats are beneath the booth, and those seats are popular, because for some reason I cannot explain, many people love to sit as far away from the screen as possible...
But if IMAX would REALLY give a damn about presentation quality, they would not have allowed this kind of SNAFUs to happen. They would have told the exhibitor that those seats in the back need to be removed and they would've raised and sized the screen sufficiently to avoid those amateurish line-of-sight issues.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-27-2013 11:34 PM
While a limited amount of obstruction in their 15/70 houses might be totally acceptable, given the way this real 4:3 IMAX material was filmed, it clearly isn't for Hollywood movie presentations in either flat or scope.
During the presentation I witnessed of the last Die Hard installment a few months back, even the subtitles were massively obstructed from my position and this movie contained some Russian dialog, where subtitles were actually needed for people that generally understand English.
Reserved seating has been a defacto standard in most multiplex chains around here for quite some years. Although some of those chains still charge you a small fee for the privilege, it's actually stupid to do so, it only helps to bring your handling costs down, since most tickets will now be sold either on-line or via ticket machines, largely eliminating the need for box office personnel...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008
|
posted 12-28-2013 08:04 AM
{quote]The fallacy is this notion that customers have accepted IMAX en masse. IMAX pumped up theatrical gross numbers aren't all from people going out of their way to see a movie in The IMAX Experience. We've talked about other factors that absolutely come into play to sweeten those earnings numbers.[/quote]
Bobby, do you work at a theatre that has an IMAX screen, either digital or 15/70? I suspect the answer is "no," because I do, and I see what the audience split is between IMAX and non-IMAX, every day. I'm not talking about dollars. I'm talking about the number of tickets sold, butts in the seats. I'm talking about the number of calls I receive on a daily basis. If you honestly think the public hasn't accepted IMAX digital en masse, it's because you aren't there dealing with it day in and day out.
Now here is the rock that is keeping you down...
quote:
The IMAX brand stopped meaning anything to me when they started pulling 15/70 projection systems out of their theaters.
You're arguing this from a singular personal point of view. I'm arguing this from multiple personal points of direct knowledge. Your presumptions are based on how you'd like the world to be. My facts are based on how the world is. You spin anecdotal information gleaned from like-minded individuals. I give direct experiences.
quote: Bobby Henderson
IMAX may have cross-chain marketing. But companies like Dolby have that too.
I love Dolby. Being able to go to the Dolby HQ in San Francisco in 2011 and getting to meet Ioan Allen and listen to him talk about sound and movies will remain one of the greatest days of my life, no matter what I have and may still accomplish. But Dolby isn't the industry leader it once was. Atmos doesn't mean as much to today's moviegoers as Dolby Stereo did in the late 1970s. Better and stronger marketing would help.
quote: Bobby Henderson
One thing that IMAX isn't going to have: movies with the term "filmed in IMAX." Once Christopher Nolan is no longer able to push 15/65 cameras around on movie sets that will be the end of it.
You couldn't Google "IMAX digital camera" before typing that, to see how incredibly wrong you are about that?
quote: Marcel Birgelen
And how exactly does that work? They have two separate sound systems, competing for the same space behind the screen and alongside the walls? And they unscrew their THX signage every time they're running an Atmos show?
Dolby Atmos is a surround sound technology that uses exactly one brand of sound processor (Dolby CP850) to perform its intended task. THX is not a sound system but a quality assurance system that can be certified using a choice of third-party equipment to achieve its intended goal.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008
|
posted 12-28-2013 12:36 PM
I've never seen or heard THX being marketed as a sound system, because sound is only a portion of what it takes for a theatre to get THX certification. In fact, if you do a Google search for thx sound system, you get a lot of photos of home theatre equipment, but you don't actually see anything that's called a THX Sound System. You will see some things listed as being a THX-certified sound system, but that means the sound system in question is THX certified, not that the sound system itself is manufactured by THX.
But then, that you think THX is a sound system could just be you misunderstanding what it all is and not doing the research for yourself to understand what it is. I don't know.
As for the CP850, I suspect it is THX certified, since there are now three AMC Prime houses that have THX certification using that unit as the sound processor.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 17 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 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