Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Presentation Reviews: ArcLight, Cinerama Dome, Edwards GIANT SCREEN

This is topic Presentation Reviews: ArcLight, Cinerama Dome, Edwards GIANT SCREEN in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003391

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-04-2002, 02:43 AM:

Just got back from a trip to LA-LA Land (and Reno). In true movie nerd fashion, I made a point of visiting several movie theaters, solely for the purpose of "recalibrating" my basis of reference for theaters here in Eugene.

I'm posting this in FHF since the content deals only with presentation quality and might be of interest to film handlers. Later I might post more about the trip, with links to other misc. pics (probably under Ground Floor). Lots of good things to say about the Hollywood & Highland area where the new Kodak Theatre is.

Disclaimer: I only stayed for about the first 2 reels of each show.

In the order visited:

=======================

Edwards Irvine Spectrum 21 IMAX [Giant Screen], Irvine CA, 04/30/2002, 5:00PM, "The Scorpion King", 35mm, scope, digital sound (newspaper said DTS but they played an SR-D snipe). Newspaper stack ad also says "Special Enhanced 35mm Giant Screen Presentation" or words to that effect. Christie projector & lamphouse visible through port glass. Matinee admission $6.

Image quality: Impressive only for its size. I measured the screen width at 80 feet. Since this is a conventional 2.39 image, only about 1/2 of the total IMAX screen height is used, and since there is no movable top or bottom masking, the edges of the image fade. Noticed pretty severe keystoning during flat trailers, and the scope image is horizontally stretched too much near the edges (poor geometry). Not particularly sharp looking, but it was focused (grain was sharp). But there's a lot to be said for that huge image taking up most all of the viewer's field of vision. I kind of liked it despite the flaws.

Sound Quality: Excellent. The surround speakers were of much higher quality than most theaters, looked like stage speakers: Large enclosure with 2 large woofers and an unenclosed horn on top. In short I think overall this is the best theater sound I've ever experienced (or at least I thought that until I visited the Dome...). Very clean, dynamic, powerful, and the surrounds have the same "character" as the stage speakers so they seem better integrated than most theaters.

=======================

ArcLight Theaters, Hollywood CA, 05/01/2002, 12:00 noon, "The Rookie", Theater "Lower 2", scope, screen width ~38 feet, slightly curved. SR-D. Moderate slope to stadium seating and Kinoton projector is not raised too far above the centerline of the screen. Admission $11.00.

Image Quality: Extremely sharp, steady, and bright. Very very nice image quality, probably as good as any 35mm I've ever seen. But the print was scratched: 1 or sometimes 2 vertical thin scratches on the entire frame (to be fair I don't know if their print came there from another theater; apparently ArcLight started running "The Rookie" after the nearby El Capitan dropped it, but the El Capitan might have been running it in DLP, so who knows for sure...). Also, the show started out of frame but that was quickly corrected. Here is a shot of the Kinoton projector taken through the port glass.

Sound Quality: As Consumer Reports would say: "Not Acceptable". Right away I noticed a "reverb" quality to the sound, especially dialog. Everyone sounded like they were talking in a racquetball court. Since there were only 2 other people there (sitting near the front), I walked around to different spots in the auditorium to see if it would make any difference. The echo effect largely went away in either rear corner, or off to either extreme side. The acoustical treatment on the walls is nothing more than a piece of flat fabric over a very thin pad. Clearly it is not suppressing "slap echo". This seems like a pretty serious flaw for a brand-new, supposedly state-of-the-art theater. Also, there was audible hiss when nothing was playing. Hiss was even audible during quiet parts of the movie. Anyway, ignoring the serious echo problem, the sound was otherwise very clean and full-range but not exceptional.

=======================

Cinerama Dome (recently refurbished and now operated by ArcLight), Hollywood CA, 05/01/2002, 1:00PM, "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring", 35mm, scope, stated screen width is 86 feet, deeply curved. Stack ad said SR-D. Admission $11.00. The place has been renovated from top to bottom and looks beautiful. Has a curtain, which closed as the trailers ended, reopened for the ArcLight image and the feature. An usher gave a short introduction.

Image Quality: Pacific Theaters claims that presentation improvements have been made and I can confirm it. The 86' image was quite bright, very steady, and well-focused across the entire curved screen. This seems like quite an achievement for 35mm. LotR actually looked much better than the last movie I saw there, the 1990 70mm reissue of "The Ten Commandments". The main thing I remember about that was it was dim, very dim. Yep, the curved screen still has horizon sag or the bowtie-syndrome or whatever you want to call it. This is mainly noticeable whenever lines of text appear. I also noticed a slight "milkiness" to the image, like too much or too little contrast (not sure which). But overall the image was extremely impressive. Imagine what a 70mm show would be like. Here is a screen shot

It's blurry due to screen image motion and too long exposure time, but it still gives you some idea of what that curved screen looks like. Note at the top of the image you can see the screen follows the curve of the round roof of the dome.

Sound Quality: Holy S&%T!! Hands down, this was the most powerful, gut-wrenching, high-impact cinema sound system I've ever heard. It was almost too much. The seats and my bodily innards were resonating. The deep .1 LFE bass in this place is not to be believed. They supposedly axed the idea of installing a Cinerama strip-type screen because they were afraid that vibration caused by the subwoofers would be noticeable in the image. I was skeptical but now I believe it. Oh yeah, if you likes your movies loud, no other theater is likely to top this.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-04-2002, 08:35 AM:

Nice reviews; thanks.

I'm very happy to hear that they didn't ruin the sound system at the Dome after the renovations. I loved the sound there when I visited just over two years ago--it was the most musical and natural sounding system that I've ever heard in a theatre, but which also had sufficient power (wihout distortion) to give full effect to action scenes.

Whatever they have behind the screen there is amazing, although I'm told that certain seating locations have problems, due to the domed ceiling.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-04-2002, 08:58 AM:

In order to get the kind of good sound Dave described in a room with a dome is pretty impressive. The acoustic engineers must have done miracles to stop the kind of focused echos that any kind of parabolic structure in a space will create. And for all the whining that I heard about the geometric distortions caused by deep curve screens, you have to admit, it give a really impressive feel to the image.

On that point, wasn't that what the Dimension 150 lens was supposed to cure? That with the D150 lens, horizontal lines weren't supposed to bow on either side of the center-line. Seems like they could get themselves a D150 lens and shut the nay-sayers up. There was a D150 theatre here in NY operating right up until last year. It was out in Syosset New York and we would take the 50 min drive each way just to see films there.

Dave, thanks for the reviews and pics. Totally absorbing stuff.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-04-2002, 11:20 AM:

Regarding the Dome, I should have made it clear that the sound system was not just loud etc., but very very clean, and "musical" as Scott mentioned. Never a hint of being pushed too hard even when rattling the furniture. The bass was not the "one note" variety either -- very articulated. Quite impressive. Surround action was not as well-defined though -- must be very tough to set up the surrounds in a round auditorium. Anyway, whether the punch of the system was crossing over into "too much" territory might be an individual judgment call, but there's no denying its impressive impact on viewers.

Posted by Michael Rourke (Member # 1142) on 05-04-2002, 12:36 PM:

My Dad was the manager at the Dome when I was just a lad, and I remember seeing Star Trek there when I was itsy. I remember it vividly, even now and I'm sure I didn't know half of what was going on, but I was in awe anyway.

My 2 year old son, Devlen, watched Spider-Man last night and he sat through the whole thing and audibly groaned at all the slow parts. When we walked out of the theater he was shooting webs out of his wrists and making the sound effects. It reminded me of the Dome and I got teary eyed.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-04-2002, 02:09 PM:

I too like the dome and always have, but I am still dismayed at the lack of installation of a proper screen. This is just another case of allowing the sound to out do the image. And yes, impressive sound is much easier to accomplish than an impressive image. On a job like this, both halves should be compromised(yes, correct engineering is a set of carefully balanced compromises) to allow it a correct balance of picture and sound. When done properly each half will compliment the other. A strip screen would have given a far, far superior image and you would have had very little of the washed out image that you talked about. This sound system sounds(pun intended) like alot of overkill to me. Although it may seem impressive, it is not correct. I personally would not want to sit through subwoofers pounding on my ear drums for 2 plus hours. Its bad for your hearing, and this whole thing makes me wonder if some kids that specialize in overloading cars with subwoofers engineered the job. Overall its as bad a job as was done at the Seattle Cinerama. There, they don't even run on a Cinerama screen, yet its still called the Seattle Cinerama, go figure.....its really stupid.
Mark

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 05-10-2002, 11:44 AM:

Regarding the Dome, the projector is a Kinoton FP-75E electronic 35/70 w/ 7kW lamp.

I understand there were attempts to change the screen, like installing a less curved frame, but they became embroiled in "historic preservation board" edicts.

------------------
Larry Shaw
Boston Light & Sound, Inc.
North American Distributor of Kinoton GmbH
290 North Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02135-1990
Tel: 617-787-3131 x104 Fax: 617-787-4257
E-Mail: larry@blsi.com
Web site: http://www.blsi.com/kinoton

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-10-2002, 05:58 PM:

The "milky" look was not extreme and most people probably wouldn't notice it. It may not have registered with me at all if I hadn't already read about the alleged issues with cross-reflections or whatever the problem is before I went there...

Posted by Mark Lucas (Member # 791) on 05-10-2002, 06:43 PM:

I think I've noticed this "milkiness" too. Does it occur in the dark areas of the frame?

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-10-2002, 08:55 PM:

You will really notice it if the creen is mostly dark but there are light parts of the extreme edges of the frame. When I saw a 70mm print of BEN-HUR in 1990, the leper cave was mostly dark save for the cave opening on one side of the frame. The shape of that opening was reflected onto the other side of the frame.

Also, a bright scene will cause a diffusion of light scattering all over the screen. The effect is similair to a Pacific theatre in Bakersfield, which, while featuring perfectly flat screens, has so much film build-up on the projection window, creates a very washed-out image.

I will say I didnt notice it very much for the showing for SPIDERMAN, but it was definitely there. Of course, SPIDERMAN was flat, so the full width of the screen wasnt revealed. They are projecting 35mm on a larger portion of the screen then they used to.

Posted by Mark Lucas (Member # 791) on 05-10-2002, 10:40 PM:

Did you see Spiderman at the Dome? I got a really bad seat in the first 4 rows. I don't recommend it. Doesn't sound nearly as good as the first few rows of the balcony.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-10-2002, 11:20 PM:

Yes. My seat was in the second row of the balcony, in the center section. It was actually an excellent seat, even though I had been upset about choosing where I wanted to sit.

In the past at the dome, I always sat in the last row of the main level section.

I walked around during the end credits, and noticed for the first time how "flattened" out the screen appears from the very back of the auditorium. The perspective of the screen realy changes from section to section.

Posted by Mark Lucas (Member # 791) on 05-10-2002, 11:52 PM:

Where did you specify you wanted to sit? I've been there 3 times since it reopened and I've always told them "the middle". My ticket for Spiderman was in the EE section. For E.T. it was A20 and for LOTR it was C29 but I wasn't forced to sit in those seats. I think the guy who punched it in screwed up the last time. It definitely wasn't in "the middle".

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-11-2002, 12:56 AM:

So the dome now has a balcony? It used to have loge sections in the back...

Paul
Gimpy Staff Projectionist, Senior Vidiot
Crown Theatres Neonopolis 14
Las Vegas, NV USA

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-11-2002, 01:22 AM:

It's EXACTLY the same mezzaniee seating they have ALWAYS had. But at the box office they refer to it as the balcony. It threw me off when I bought my ticket.

Mark, when I asked for the middle, I was told this section was NOT available for this performance at this time. I didnt know if this meant it was sold out or not. After entering the theatre it became clear the entire raised section was being called the balcony, so in effect, they were dividing the dome up into just two sections, at least at this performance. It WAS confusing. I also could have moved just about anywhere after the lights went out, but it turned out to be perfect where I sat.