|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Movie-Theater Chains Take On IMAX
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-28-2013 01:05 PM
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.
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.
First, with respect to IMAX and LieMax. IMAX has a 40 year history of being a presentation format as well as a company name. The reputation was built upon a big screen experience with technology that was generally ahead of the curve (15/70 picture, 6-channel sound with subwoofers back when most movies were mono, a controlled theatre design and environment, light-levels that were generally above other theatres...etc.) To divorce only part of that concept is nothing more than a lie...hence the LieMax adoption. It is like the difference between "Filmed in Panavision" that means a "Scope" movie with anamorphic lenses and "Filmed with Panavision lenses and cameras"...which just denotes a quality level that probably never meant to anything to anyone outside of our industry. People are basically not technoweenies and if you are boasting about something...it probably means bigger/louder or a combination of it.
IMAX trading on its name is just fine by me but applying the same name to a different process is an attempt to deceive the public into thinking that they are getting the same technology (or even an equivalent update of the same technology). If there was no intent to deceive, they would have called it something different and kept their name attached to it. IMAX DIGITAL would have had likely the same consumer recognition and Digital has not been a buzzword that has hurt anyone, quite the opposite.
Mind you, I've never cared the for the IMAX experience (film). I don't like the 1.4 ratio as the height never did anything to augment my experience...but that is just me. I'm a 5/70 guy.
Which leads me into the question of is it important that consumer understand a technology for it to be valid. The 100 year history of cinema proves that the consumer rarely if ever understands (or cares) about the technology. They will make up in their minds what something means and be satisfied with that explanation. Do you think most people knew that film just showed a sequence of still images that they stopped in a gate, were shown 2 or 3 times as stills and then their brains, due to persistence of vision formed a continuous moving image? Well do ya punk? No! How about Color. Yeah, they get basics like B&W/Color...but how about Technicolor? What is the difference between "filmed in Technicolor" vs "Prints by Technicolor?" Not a clue and they don't care.
As I said, I'm a 5/70 fan (Todd Ao, actually). In my career, 70mm has ALWAYS drawn a better crowd than its competitors in other formats. To some degree, IMAX did the same as traditional 70mm fell out of favor. Did/do the patrons that flocked to see the latest movie presented in 70mm 6-track Stereo (with or without Dolby) know really what it meant? Not a chance and believe me I know it for a fact. They thought it meant it was bigger/better/louder. Think about it, 70mm normally showed up on the biggest screens in any town though there were exceptions to the rule. When I ran ET back on its original release (a 1.85 ratio movie)...the arguments one could get into for it to not fill the "70mm screen) were a plenty. I had a manager come into the booth with a ruler to measure the film to make sure it was 70mm wide (no kidding). Back then you always got a 35mm backup of the 70mm prints..so I pulled a reel of the back up and showed him the difference in frame size and that the ratios matched and then the soundtracks (I might have even rolled the same reel on each machine one 35 and one 70mm so he could see/hear the actual difference that a customer should notice if they actually understood what 70mm meant.
Then in the '90s having to suffer the lack of 70mm because that was "just for the sound" and with digital audio, we didn't need 70mm (mind you, i always worked the larger screen theatres, like the Uptown in DC) and we NEEDED 70mm to get the image to look decent. But with digital sound we had NEW technoweenies that thought they knew what was the best digital audio based on "compression" and such. At the Uptown I could switch digital sound formats at will and for some that would "request" one or the other, I rolled my eyes and said, I'll switch, possibly, on reel changes...after the show...you tell me which reels sounded best. It happened several times, by the way. 1/2 the time they couldn't tell the difference, the other half they always picked the Dolby Digital sound as being best...despite requesting DTS (we didn't have SDDS there).
In the '70s and into the 80s...we had Dolby Stereo...what did that mean to john q public? Why surround sound (and louder) of course. They had no idea that "stereo" meant three screen speakers to us...they don't have that at home (not then, for sure) so there was no idea what extra expense it was to put in mere Dolby Stereo.
How many of you have received comments when you were gearing up for DCinema "I thought you already were running off of DVD" or something like that. As film has left the consumer hands (and isn't in the classroom anymore by a couple of decades)...they have no concept of it.
My very long winded point is that the consumer's lack of understanding is no excuse to not provided the very best experience that technology and prudent business practices will allow. What the public is buying for that ticket is that experience. Their perception of an improved experience with the "X" theatres is sufficient if it is sufficient to the consumer. If you want the consumer to differentiate one format or system from another, you WILL have to educate them on it and it will be a long slow trog. Over time, certain theatres do develop a reputation for being very good (or bad) and claim more than their typical share of a market so putting on a better show than your competitors (which might be someone's living room or even a different form of entertainment entirely) is something a business must always keep in mind.
THX was supposed to be a seal of approval. That said, VERY few people knew what those three letters meant...including THX! In the beginning, it was a set of sound design and implementation principles that allowed commercial theatres to have equivalent sound reproduction to the dubbing rooms that mixed the movie. Note, they also evaluated the picture but it was the sound that was their focus. However, in the quest for $$$ they sold out and approved sub-standard theatres. As such, the deflated their brand. One that most consumers didn't understand anyway and they also had a business model that required an exhibitor to continually pay for those three letters despite THX not really doing much for it. It became sillier when in-house people could re-certify a theatre since one has financial incentive to "pass" them. At that point, why bother? And sure enough, people stopped paying for it, by and large.
This is a danger for IMAX too. They can't afford any bad theatres because it reflects across the whole brand. I liken IMAX to THX in that they are selling their brand as a quality level that, while achievable by anyone, often isn't achieved by others because there is no one that is saying "you can't cut that corner or save there, you have to spend the money to do it right." I applaud them for doing the daily calibrations to make sure everything is tip-top. I still classify it is a LieMax because they didn't distinguish their classic experience from this Hollywood based one. It IS a different experience and it isn't important that EVERY consumer knows what 15/70 is, it is sufficient that anyone knows that there is a difference between 15/70 and 2K or 4K digital projection. You don't call different things the same thing; that is deception...or a Lie.
History has show, in our industry, "premium" theatres/formats, particularly single-sourced, have their day in the sun but they often fade away over time as lower cost alternatives that are "good enough" push them aside. The public, by and large, has a preferred theatre more than a process and their preference my be merely convenience or it may be due to the perception of a better value/experience.
Long term, IMAX is going to have a hard time keeping its market share if history tells us anything. However, IMAX has shown in the past couple of decades that it can try to re-invent itself to remain relevant. Perhaps it can keep ahead. I just wish it wouldn't use deception to do so because it doesn't need to.
As for THX and ATMOS (and IMAX)...they are not mutually exclusive entities (Though IMAX traditionally handles its sound differently there is nothing to stop them from branding themselves with ATMOS). Just because one may think of THX as a sound system does not mean it is/was (it wasn't). That was one of THX's issues...they never educated their customer as to what THX meant. It was, at its core, a set of requirements to ensure accurate sound reproduction. This applies to traditional sound systems (including Mono) as well as the new immersion ones (sorry to those sick of the immersion name). I think their problem will be convincing exhibitor to spend money with THX (continually) to some how best their competitors because they have a THX certified auditorium with Atmos versus a mere Atmos auditorium (as an example). You are talking about a fraction of a fraction. When combined with IMAX it would seem even less likely since IMAX already enjoys what THX has traditionally enjoyed...that is to force a quality level. As a contractor/dealer, one nice thing about THX was that they could be the "bad guy" requiring one to buy a particular type/quantity of equipment and to make the baffle wall...etc. IMAX already has that...I'm not sure that THX brings to the table in a combo room. As for THX-Atmos...well, Dolby can suggest a baffle wall and a certain quantity of speakers...an exhibitor is free to ignore those suggestions...with THX, they could require it in order to attain THX certification...but what is the current value of THX to the movie goer at this point? That was squandered years ago.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-28-2013 01:50 PM
quote: Sam D. Chavez
This having Atmos and THX in the same room is really a non-issue and shows how tedious this thread has become recently. All the back and forth points are made by very smart people but are essentially much ado about nothing.
For me, this is more like proving the point that in this industry, there is almost nothing left that signifies any real value...
Getting Atmos on the THX program is probably just a formality, but still, if it currently isn't, then it isn't and if we do not care if somebody (a rather large theater chain in this case) sticks THX labels on something that most likely isn't, then what's left to care about? Those new "brands" of "Premium Large Format" theaters that are spawning around the globe offer even less value than THX does now, because it never originated from anything that had any real value, it's just hollow marketing bullshit with big-time logos that signify absolutely nothing.
And the same goes for IMAX, at least for me: Digital IMAX just adds to the frustration, because it's yet another thing of value that has been largely lost. And like many others already stated, it would all be perfectly fine if they used another label than just "IMAX" for their sub-par digital product even if they put something like "powered by IMAX" on it, in huge blue letters.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-28-2013 01:51 PM
Terry, your single mindedness has once again missed the point...yes the consumer doesn't normally know/care...nobody is arguing that and my long-winded explanation above showed that this is not news for any prior systems...the fact remains that IMAX has intentionally deceived the customer into thinking that different processes are the same...that is the point, the whole point. Don't call something the same when it isn't. It isn't even "equivalent" on many levels. Hence, it earns the LieMax brandishing by any that choose to state it.
Note, we were merciless about Dolby's Fake "SR" too with the CAT222SR/A...something the customer was lied to by Dolby (customer being both the exhibitor and movie patron). It was different, provably different, but called the same thing as a superior device by the company that invented the better thing...real SR. This is about right and wrong and IMAX is in the wrong as was Dolby...they traded on their name to perpetrate a lie. Despite mass acceptance of the 222 SR/A never changed the lie (or lack of performance) that it was. The same is true with LieMax. Don't call something different the same thing. I can guarantee you that the "bitch" level would have been much lower if IMAX had called the digital version of their experience something other than the same name as their 15/70 experience...they are not equivalent, don't deceive people into thinking they are.
The idea of "moving on" is the equivalent of a "news" company spouting a lie enough times that it is passed off as true...just because you can get people to repeat the lie doesn't make it true either.
50 years from now, when some kid is doing research on IMAX...the word should reflect the 15/70 process and the sound that they added to it...somewhere along the way it should reflect their digital efforts but there shouldn't be confusion as to one work meaning multiple things.
The closest equivalent I can come up with at the moment is Cinerama. Anyone looking up Cinerama now (50 years past its inception, give or take) is a 3-strip 35mm process on a very wide, deeply curved screen with multi-channel sound and such. UP70 (Its a Mad Mad Mad Mad World), which brandished the Cinerama name on its release was an UltraPanavision type movie that didn't share much in common with the other things in Cinerama and has gone down in history as an Ultra-Panavision 70mm movie, not Cinerama. Finally ending with 2001:A Space Odyssey...what also was branded as Cinerama, but was really just a Super Panavision 70 and historically is known a Super Panavision movie, not a Cinerama one. The confusion is in the name of a company versus the name of a technology. Cinerama and IMAX have a name that signifies both and it is their responsibility to distinguish different processes akin to what Dolby has done over the years. Dolby was a company and a process at first (as well as the man)...however as new technologies came out...it was Dolby Stereo, Dolby Stereo SR, Dolby Stereo Digital...etc. "Dolby" give the process credibility, the additional information differentiates it from prior processes.
Until IMAX comes up with a name for their digital process, it is LieMax...time an acceptance does not change that it is a lie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-28-2013 02:28 PM
DMR is really not just one process anymore. Originally intended as a digital remastering process to get 35mm content to look acceptable on 15/70 IMAX screens, it's now whatever IMAX calls it is.
Currently, the official statement regarding DMR is:
quote:
The content being shown in an IMAX theatre is significantly better than the content playing down the hall. The secret sauce in the IMAX mix is DMR – or Digital Re-mastering – a transformative process we invented. This is IMAX’s proprietary method of turning an already powerful movie into a breathtaking IMAX blockbuster with unparalleled image and sound quality. IMAX spends months on location and in the editing room of its DMR facilities with the director and technical teams of each film – planning the shots, re-mixing the sound, meticulously adjusting the saturation, contrast, brightness and hundreds of details in virtually every frame to present the film at its best.
It’s often done after the film is shot, but leading directors are increasingly asking IMAX to join the moviemaking process from the very start. For a growing number of Hollywood movies, IMAX is part of the film’s DNA.
That means, oftentimes, an IMAX movie is conceived as an IMAX movie – with the filmmaker working with IMAX to decide which parts, for example, should be shot with an IMAX camera, what kinds of techniques make the most of the IMAX screen, sound and theatre, and how the drama should unfold to take advantage of IMAX’s larger format, richer color, sheer scale and impact.
So, everything and nothing can be called DMR, it's a bit like a horoscope, there is always some truth in it...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 17 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 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