Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Are there any Imax projectors out there?

This is topic Are there any Imax projectors out there? in forum Large Format 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=14;t=000075

Posted by Mike Carro (Member # 232) on 06-15-2004, 11:45 PM:

Probably a stupid question because I couldn't imagine any being available but I have some Imax trailers and thought what a kick it would be to view them at home. No name calling, please.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 06-16-2004, 12:30 AM:

Imax leases its projectors to theaters (except for a rare few early installs). There are none for sale.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 06-16-2004, 01:51 AM:

Well I recently saw a Maverick 15/70 kicking around in a Riverside, CA warehouse. Not sure what will become of it (or the "Maverick" concept for that matter). At least it's a bit more compact than an Imax projector.

Posted by Stewart Anderson (Member # 1809) on 06-16-2004, 02:42 AM:

Cinema Development Company (CDC) makes 15/70 rolling loop projectors for buy... They are a bit cheaper then IMAX, but you get what you pay for in my opinion. [Wink]

You want compact, check out the IMAX SR projector, its about 1/4 the size of a typical 15/70. [Smile]

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 06-16-2004, 12:33 PM:

And,,,,,The new MPX projectors by IMAX will be smaller than the SR projectors. (so I am told by IMAX)

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-16-2004, 12:35 PM:

"They are a bit cheaper then IMAX, but you get what you pay for in my opinion."
_________________________________________________________________

Stuart, Actually what you have there is far better than the Imax SR Projector. The CDC produces a much steadier image, its easier on film because of the larger rotor and you have the capability to use the full output of a 15kw lamp if you want to.

Your picture quality at M.A.L. is far superior to the Imax Theatre here in SLC,and easily twice as bright. Now if there was a real Imax in town that was equipped with the larger Imax projector then you'd have some stiff competition. You sound playbacl is also every bit as good. However your presentation rates in the land of being dismal.

Re: the Maverick projector.....

I met and talked with one of the designers a while back and what killed an otherwise good projector was a lack of a decent platter system. At installations that utilized the MAverick projector they were teamed up with a Strong Special venue platter. The people that gave financial backing to build the MAverick cut it off when it came time to build a proper platter system..... Its the Strong platter that was the weak link and that eventually killed the two installations that existed.
Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Stewart Anderson (Member # 1809) on 06-16-2004, 04:35 PM:

I could go over all the problems that we have had with our system as a result of going with a cheaper brand and used equiptment, but I think I would get into trouble with the bosses if I did.

Overall, I still stand by my origonal statement: "you get what you pay for..." [Smile]

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-16-2004, 07:04 PM:

I have wondered what became of the two mavericks that did get installed as it would be worht preserving one

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-16-2004, 08:13 PM:

Stewart,
98% of the problems with your booth stemmed from penny pinching in the wrong places and not having any UPS supply. The system took way to many power bumps in the first year of operation. A UPS supply was originally spec'sd in but that was nixed... so they learned the hard/expensive way and now there is a UPS supply. I can definately say they were told there would be problems without one. I also feel that CDC many be another part of the reliability problem.... not that they don't know their machine... just that they seem to stretch the time between service a bit too long. Its intereating if you look at the Zion Canyon projectors history. They have not missed a single show or had any breakdown at all since the machine was installed. Its mainly doe to the fact that someone else is servicing the booth down there and that the projector gets more frequent and more throughly done service visits and that the operation is run with a far more professional staff that have many years experience in the LF field.

Mark

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-16-2004, 09:08 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
not that they don't know their machine... just that they seem to stretch the time between service a bit too long

Keep in mind Mark, that it's the "cheapness" of the customer that dictates the service contract... the number of visits, the time between visits, and what is included.

So,

quote: Stewart Anderson was the last to post
"you get what you pay for..."

Ya got that right.

I do agree that the CDC is a FAR superior machine than ALL the later IMAX machines.

I also agree with what were the basic causes for the problems at Stewart's theatre. Ummm... see the "cheapness" comment above. [uhoh]

BTW: I would stay away from the Maverick unless you wear a full set of armor including chainmail at strategic locations to protect all body parts. [Wink]

>>> Phil

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-16-2004, 11:18 PM:

Then Stewart is still wrong in his statement about a "cheaper brand of used equipment". What I really think he meant was a cheaper type of service contract that was bought by the cheapskates he works for.

With these machines I find that its all about what you maintain and how often you do it. They are easily capable of running with ZERO problems.

Mark

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 06-16-2004, 11:21 PM:

I saw a company trying to sell a Maverick at ShoWest.

Posted by Stewart Anderson (Member # 1809) on 06-17-2004, 12:56 AM:

I hadn't thought of the lack of problems since the UPS was installed, but we are definitely still "debugging" the system. And I'm getting pretty fed up with stretched tape splices, especially when I'm personally monitoring all of them almost weekly.

And as for the "bugs", well for example:

About 3 weeks ago our right eye dowser refused to open. I got in there and greased the guide beams that the neumatic dowser travels on and the air pressure was normal, but still the damn thing wouldn't open unless I gently hit the front of the projector to dislodge the dowser. Fortunately CDC was already coming in to update the power supplies because they thought they were getting too hot. So they fixed the power supplies and the dowsers, but now the dowsers are opening too soon so the last few frames of the countdown are exposed on screen. So this means they were actually compensating for the dowsers sluggishly opening. Now that they are opening normal we are having to keep the dowsers "onlock" untill the countdown is done.

So I STILL stand by my original statement.... [Smile]

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-17-2004, 01:18 AM:

Well, What can I say? DUH! Ya can lead a horse to water, but...

FYI: ANYBODY that has ANY clue would never use a tape splice on a rolling-loop projector. Zig-Zag or straight cut...just not practical considering the stresses involved. Sooner or later, they WILL stretch and fail. That's why REAL men use ultrasonic splicers. Perhaps You(r) theatre NEEDS some guidance as to the REAL world of 1570?

You are sounding like a broken record...

>>> Phil

Posted by Stewart Anderson (Member # 1809) on 06-17-2004, 01:39 AM:

Actually the prints come built up and RPG and other film companies strongly prohibit me from changing those splices. I did this once with Ocean Oasis, then was chewed out by RPG.

CDC says tape splices are perfectly acceptable...However BELEIVE ME WHEN I SAY, IF I HAD IT MY WAY, 70MM TAPE SPLICES WOULD NEVER BE USED ON 1570. Or on 870 for that matter.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 06-17-2004, 01:48 AM:

RPG can go fly a kite. Most of the prints I've received from them have had one problem or another, most of which involved me spending hours upon hours replacing every splice in any given print. Eventually, we told them to stop assembling new prints for us since I was doing the work all over again anyway.

As far as tape splices go, I've had prints run thousands of passes with no tearing or stretching. It's all in the details of making the splice properly: No bubbles or gaps, the edge of the splice falls between perfs and not on them, etc. But ultrasonic splices on 1570 do kick ass. [Smile]

Posted by Stewart Anderson (Member # 1809) on 06-17-2004, 01:53 AM:

Thank you Adam! [Smile]

I think our stretching problem is coming from rewinding the films on our CDC knock offs of the MK 1. Especially since 99% of the splices that stretch seem to always be near the beginning of the film (where the most tension is present on rewind).

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-17-2004, 02:30 AM:

I'll second Adam on the tape splices. We ran thousands and thousands of them through the old IMAX Classic projector and reel unit at Caesars and never had a problem with them. It's true that properly made ultrasonic splices are great, but we never had any issues with "pinking shear" tape splices either.

[ 06-17-2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 06-17-2004, 04:20 AM:

Same here. Never a problem with the zig-zag tape splice, properly done, of course. Only the one connecting the academy leader to junk stock tends to stretch slightly on the one side, but that likely comes from the projector saying threaded up over hours of no-tickets-sold no-shows; constantly taut on the same stretch of film. Not getting those with Potter, though ... not yet, anyway.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-17-2004, 12:00 PM:

The MK1 design of reel unit puts a lot of stress on tape splices at the head and tail of the reels.
I always assemble my own prints and use the ultrasonic splicer for the print and tape for the trailors
The zigzag can also have issues with the grade of tape used and some places seem to use poorer quality than others

Posted by Stewart Anderson (Member # 1809) on 06-17-2004, 01:56 PM:

I think I might show my bosses this thread, because even after telling them all of the problems we will have with tape splices even when I'm checking them constantly we still get used/pre-built prints that are usually tape-spliced. Then after receiving a tape-spliced/pre-built print, I'm prohibited from changing those splices (to ultrasonic). [Mad]

They tell me that they are cheaper and they don't have a choice [Roll Eyes]

W T F!!!

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 06-17-2004, 02:34 PM:

Just my two cents here: I am running prints that Adam made up when he was at Grand Rapids. I did check the splices and did not need to change any splice. The zig-zag tape splice is, in my opinion, a great splice that will give you a long run before any problems arise. OH, as far as RPG goes, I totally agree with Adam here, I received a print from them that had ultrasonic with Tape over the ultrasonic splice, ON BOTH SIDES!! it ran kinda hard through the SR's, had to readjust the stator clearance. Adam taught me how to splice, as with anything, it is all in the person whom is operating the equipment. The better trained the better results. [thumbsup]

Posted by Stewart Anderson (Member # 1809) on 06-17-2004, 03:32 PM:

Bob, I COMPLETELY AGREE. But I also think that there is a little more to it; I think if you rate the quality of these four things (listed below) and then average those four ratings you will have a pretty accurate rating of your theaters presentation.

1. Good Equipment
2. Good Operators
3. Good Service
4. Good Prints

For example on a 1 - 10 scale:
1. Equipment 7
2. Operators 9
3. Service 7
4. Prints 5
-------
28 / 4 = 7 (70%)
And I'm sure some of these factors should pull more weight then others, but its just a simple stupid theory of mine [Smile]

P.S. The numbers were not my theater, I was just pulling numbers out of thin air to make a point.

Posted by Jesse August (Member # 1798) on 06-17-2004, 03:51 PM:

Tape splices are good for trailers, but I would never assemble a 1570 print with a tape splicer. Ultrasonic is the only way to go.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-17-2004, 05:55 PM:

First to change a splice from tape to ultrasonic or vice versa requires the insertion of 2 frames of black to replace the lost frames of the splice and maintain sync

Posted by Jesse August (Member # 1798) on 06-17-2004, 06:54 PM:

That is why I think tape splices are good for add and removing trailers, you don't have to worry about adding black frames because you don't loose any frames.

Posted by Rob Butler (Member # 2274) on 06-18-2004, 10:27 AM:

If the time to break down a print ever comes, you'll seriously regret using ultrasonic splices.

quote: Stewart Anderson
I'm prohibited from changing those splices (to ultrasonic). They tell me that they are cheaper and they don't have a choice

So they're saying that using up your splice tape is somehow cheaper than using a splicer that doesn't use tape to begin with?

Posted by Jesse August (Member # 1798) on 06-18-2004, 02:13 PM:

I guess I'm lucky I've never had to break down a 15/70 print.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-18-2004, 04:47 PM:

I've never heard of breaking down an IMAX print. At least in my experience, once they're made, they're made for good and they get shipped that way, in big and heavy cases.

Posted by Jesse August (Member # 1798) on 06-18-2004, 07:06 PM:

Come to think of it I have broken down 15/70 prints, but only in half so they would fit into two shipping cases. For example Star Wars AOTC, Apollo 13, Matrix, but these movies are longer then the ordinary 15/70 running times of 40 to 50 minutes. Other than that reason I don't see a need to break down.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-18-2004, 07:12 PM:

Rob said "If the time to break down a print ever comes, you'll seriously regret using ultrasonic splices."

In 20 years or so at it never broke down a 1570 print to ship out always ordered a case and reel and out it went I I went and visited the chiropractor [Big Grin]

Posted by Stewart Anderson (Member # 1809) on 06-18-2004, 07:12 PM:

They told me that they use tape splices because it is easier to change reels (you don't loose any frames with tape splices). I tried to use the argument that you should never have to change reels especially if you are using ultrasonic splices to begin with. Oh well, I'm justs a pawn in the operation of this business so I can only do as I'm told. [Frown]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-18-2004, 07:18 PM:

Of course you could also be inspecting and re-doing the critical splices once a week while you are running another film instead of just sitting around [thumbsup]

. There IS alot of time for you to do just that!!

A film/splice, splice location maintainance log should also be kept of each film you have in the booth, or that you may run. Equipment aside, proper print maintainance on your part will also lead to you having zero down time.

Mark

Posted by Robert Stawiarski (Member # 1842) on 06-18-2004, 08:18 PM:

Stewart -- No offense intended, but it seems that you've become jaded/cynical towards your work environment. Just in this thread, you have said: your equipment is sub-par, your company is cheap, your managers do not listen to your suggestions, and you're just a 'pawn in the operation of this business.' Might be time to look for another job?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-18-2004, 09:14 PM:

I can honestly state from working with this Museum since it has been open that.....

1. Available funds are limited now and for about another year.

2. They have to make decisions based on how much money they have at the time something is needed.

3. Your equipment is among the very best there is for this film format.

4. They definately do take input from those that know and along with available funds make reasonably sound decisions.

5. Like any other entity of this type there are enough politics to go around for everyone working there [Big Grin]

. Goes with the territory.

Mark

Posted by Stewart Anderson (Member # 1809) on 06-18-2004, 11:54 PM:

Robert, no offence taken. Your a observant/wise man. [Smile]

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 06-19-2004, 02:14 PM:

quote: Mister Anti-Imax
Of course you could also be inspecting and re-doing the critical splices once a week while you are running another film instead of just sitting around . There IS alot of time for you to do just that!!

It's a little more involved than you'd expect, especially if you're trying to do it in the dark while a show is running. This is why I insisted on assembling my own prints ... it takes longer to find, inspect and repair splices (even with the lights on) than it takes to make them from scratch. Inspecting splices for library prints should be done occasionally, but it should be done under proper conditions with plenty of light.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-19-2004, 02:43 PM:

"quote: Mister Anti-Imax"

Aaron, I do somewhat take offense to that line....

I'm hardly anti Imax. I happen to love visiting really nice Imax theatres... not the excuse for an Imax theatre that Imax has been building of lately. I am for what will work in any given situation and Imax wasn't a soultion for this museum. We also do not have a decent Imax theatre here in SLC as long as Stewarts theatre has better image and sound, or perhaps when Imax builds a REAL Imax theatre here in SLC.
To me the Cinesphere or the Air And Space Museum are REAL Imax Theatres.

BTW: They do have plenty of lights on time at the museum to do proper film inspection/maintainance..... To me its either you care or you don't....
Mark

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 06-19-2004, 08:56 PM:

Mark, the Air and Space museum has SR projectors now.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-19-2004, 10:27 PM:

Sorry to hear that've gone the inferior route George. I was always impressed with the image there. I'm sure the image is quite a bit dimmer than it was....... From an operational standpoint I'm sure its alot less expensive though.

Mark

Posted by Stewart Anderson (Member # 1809) on 06-20-2004, 01:02 AM:

I thought it was a nice booth. You do have to literally climb up into the booth to get there. They have very steep metal stairs that go up into the booth. They had two quick turn reel units and roller assemblies in between. The sound rack looked state of the art too (I don't know much about Sonics...). I was VERY impressed with the presentation.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-20-2004, 11:19 AM:

"The sound rack looked state of the art too (I don't know much about Sonics...). I was VERY impressed with the presentation."

The racks are very nicely done, especially the AC distribution. The power amps are Crown and vastly inferior to the QSC amps at your booth. Don't know why on earth Sonics would ever use Crown. The presentation at every Imax theatre is always impecable.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-20-2004, 02:12 PM:

At NASM...the last time I was in the booth (just prior to SR conversion)...the amps were ABB. NASM was a very old IMAX installation and has evolved a bit. Their original projector was also a 3-bladed rotor..rather rare in the IMAX world. The SR system went in with 3-D.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-20-2004, 09:04 PM:

Its certainly dishearting when a really fine facility such as the ASM has to end up with a lesser quality system than they started out with. All the SR equipped booths out here have Crown amps disguised in Sonics cases. Perhaps they really didn't want anyone to know what they use.

Mark

Posted by Daniel Wright (Member # 1983) on 06-23-2004, 11:56 AM:

There is an Iweks Cine Dome setup on ebay right now. It came out of the San Francisco Earthquake Experence.
Heres the URL

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4791&item=3823553460&rd=1

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-23-2004, 10:44 PM:

Yea, Thatas been running on E-Bay for quite a few months. some audio folks just don't know that Large Format systems just don't sell that way.

Mark

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-23-2004, 11:04 PM:

I find the description and original $$$ amount hilarious! What a bunch of dumb-asses!

Even **IF** they were close dollar-wise for that special venue, that figure would have been with all the theatre design and system engineering, audio system including all sources, power amps, processing, speakers, show control, as well as the projection equipment, screen, screen frame, etc. They only are selling some of the projection. I didn't see any lens listed for example, etc...

If I remember right, that system was built around 1993. Ballantyne 570 or 870 (don't remember) projector with ALL the Iwerks mods at that time to make it reliable but NOT the best effort in later years... many improvements were made after that system.

They really need to quit smokin' that I-30 stuff and get real for ALL of their asking prices.

>>> Phil

[ 06-24-2004, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Phil Hill ]

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-24-2004, 02:10 PM:

I visited that theatre when it was in operation and it was a 5 70 Ballantyne. The picture was very impressive as was the soundsystem

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-25-2004, 03:01 PM:

Re: (page 2) tape splices on 15/70 film.

Adam gave me some junk leader rolls that I have been using with my 5/70 film. (Hey, 2 out of 3 frames have a frameline to thread up on. [Wink]

) He had them assembled with that super narrow (and rather crappy) tape that IMAX uses with zigzag splices. I was planning on remaking all of them before I used them, but decided to run a test anyway. They hold up just fine in my JJs. I ran a loop that had one of his splices in it and it just ran and ran and ran. No problem. He also gave me a partial roll of tape and I ran a 35mm loop through the Kinotons. Even a single sided test splice ran perfectly, over and over. (The Simplexes didn't like it though.) Anyway, I doubt it's the splice assuming the edges of the tape are between sprockets (unlike most people's 35mm splices). The rolling loop is amazingly gentle on the film, unlike the tension on my JJ 5/70 test. I would agree with Stuart that it's probably too much tension during rewind.