quote:

---

Crown Doesn't Get Big Picture

Dominant IMAX `800-Lb. Gorilla'
March 9, 2005
By LARRY WILLIAMS, Courant Staff Writer The Crown Palace 17's giant-screen Odyssey theater in Hartford hasn't played a large-format movie since "Beauty and the Beast" more than a year ago, and it's anyone's guess when there will be another one.

The problem for Crown Theatres is that it chose a cheaper Gigavision projection system over industry leader IMAX, and few new movies are being issued in the film format used by Gigavision.

In the five years since the Hartford complex opened, the large-format film industry has come to be dominated more than ever by IMAX, which has cut deals with Hollywood studios to make digitally remastered versions of prospective blockbusters for IMAX theaters only.

Thus "Robots," an animated family film that opens Friday in both 35mm and IMAX versions, is only available to Crown in 35mm. The IMAX version will be at Showcase Cinemas Buckland Hills, which equipped one auditorium in November with IMAX's new MPX projection system.

In addition, IMAX 3D has become the industry standard, meaning virtually all large-format films made in 3-D or converted to 3-D are not available to the Odyssey. That's true even when a competing IMAX theater doesn't book a film, as happened with James Cameron's "Aliens of the Deep," which attracted enthusiastic audiences in many locales but bypassed Buckland Hills.

Crown Theatres, which is based in Norwalk, did not respond to repeated requests for interviews over several days.

But Crown's plight was acknowledged and elaborated upon by the man who sold it the Gigavision projectors in Hartford and Jupiter, Fla. - Ernie Tracy, director of large-format and cinema sales and marketing for Kinoton America, the North American distributor for the German projector maker Kinoton GmbH.

"What Crown had originally intended was to be able to show more entertainment-oriented large-format films," Tracy said, as opposed to the more educational films traditionally shown in museums, science centers and zoos.

"But unfortunately, because IMAX is the 800-pound gorilla in the industry, they decided to saturate the market, and they started to focus on commercial cinemas," he said.

In the past year, IMAX has launched an expansion into the world of multiplexes with MPX, a smaller, simpler version of the original IMAX. IMAX also stepped up production of remastered versions of studio films such as "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," "Spider-Man 2," "Robots" and the upcoming "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "Batman Begins." The Christmas feature "The Polar Express" not only was blown up to IMAX proportions but converted to 3-D. It was the debut IMAX feature at Buckland Hills Nov. 10.

"A place like Crown doesn't have access to that material because they're not an IMAX," Tracy said.

The compatibility problem is this: Each frame of IMAX film is 70mm by 15 sprocket holes, and runs horizontally through the projector. The film used by Gigavision and other alternatives to IMAX is 70mm by eight sprocket holes and runs vertically. IMAX has its loyalists, but most experts agree the average moviegoer can't tell the difference.

People in the industry refer to the two formats as 15/70 and 8/70.

Perhaps the coup de grace for the Crown was the decision by Walt Disney Pictures to stop converting its animated features to both formats. Disney's decision also robbed Crown of "The Young Black Stallion," a rare live-action drama made with large-format cameras (as opposed to a remastered 35mm film).

The decline in the fortunes of the 8/70 format is evident in Tracy's North American sales the last three years - four Gigavision projectors, period.

It's not that Crown Theatres didn't see this coming. Tracy said the chain had the opportunity to convert the Hartford theater to IMAX about six months ago but didn't do it. It's possible that IMAX's deal with National Amusements, parent company of Showcase Cinemas, foiled Crown's plans. But Tracy said it's evident, too, that Crown has lost some of its enthusiasm for large-format films, which - if they're not studio blockbusters - require expensive promotional efforts with schools and civic groups to be successful.

The Crown Odyssey in Hartford is far from the only giant-screen theater to be playing 35mm movies such as "Constantine" instead of the spectacles for which it was built. A check of multiplex websites across the country didn't turn up any non-IMAX large-format theaters showing large-format films.

Even many IMAX theaters are doing it, including Buckland Hills, which in the last few weeks has shown "Hitch," "Meet the Fockers" and "Boogeyman" on the IMAX screen.

Brian Callaghan, spokesman for National Amusements, said the theater couldn't get "Aliens of the Deep" for Buckland Hills because of a shortage of prints. It did play at the other three IMAX screens in the chain, however.

Contact Larry Williams at lwilliams@courant.com.

---

quote:

---

IMAX has its loyalists, but most experts agree the average moviegoer can't tell the difference.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Thus their equipment is not sitting domant as other systems would...they can use it like any other 35/70 system too until another 8/70 feature is available.

---

quote: Brian Michael Weidemann

---

Admittedly, I've never seen an 8/70 presentation

---

Actually they can look quite good, very sharp, when projected with good optics. The quality of todays negative stock is why there have been alot of 15/70 productions shot in 8/70 these days. The cameras are also lighter and the film stock savings is about 40%. The main problem with 8/70 is achieving the high light levels that one gets with 15/70(Imax SR systems excepted!)projectors. I've seem Imax SR systems that are only a tad better in light level than the better 8/70 systems can do. The Iwerks Linear Loop for instance has the equivelent of a high speed pull down and is extremely light efficient.... thanks to Phil.....

Mark
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 03-11-2005, 01:13 AM:
 
That's pretty neat. And, yes, a great many things in life are directly attributed to Phil.

I'm sure 8/70 is a fabulous format, and I can see it making more practical "large format" sense in many ways, for just those reasons. Still, there's something just really darned cool about a horizontal motion-picture format that gets me all excited. And who can deny the 1:1.33 aspect as the single most aesthetically pleasing shape ever to be known in the history of existence? I mean, really.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-11-2005, 07:16 AM:
 

quote: Brian Michael Weidemann

---

Still, there's something just really darned cool about a horizontal motion-picture format that gets me all excited.

---

Thats exactly why I like the VistaVision format!! I still own both a camera and projector and have threatened to make boring VistaVision films about the Western States. Where I disagree with you and I think you're dead wrong is about the 1.33 ratio...... pleasing it is not....... difficult it is to compose for and fill properly.... in Imax much of it is wasted because of the special requirements for composition that Imax reccomends. I think if you did a poll you'd find that Wide Screen 1.85 or wider ratios would win hands down. In recent years a poll dictated the new 16X9 wide screen aspect ratio for HDTV!! 1:33 to 1 , 1.85 or wider.... .

Mark
 

---

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 03-11-2005, 02:54 PM:
 

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

I've seem Imax SR systems that are only a tad better in light level than the better 8/70 systems can do

---

quote: Dick Vaughan

---

Don't generalise Mark. properly lined up SR's can give very good results

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

they chose to leave the black masking(coating) off the O.D. of the lens elements

---

What do you mean? The SR has the same masking plate setup on the spherical lens assembly as the GT and practically the same lenses.

Seriously, I don't know what you mean by a "masking/coating" on the "O.D." What is this O.D.?

Feel free to email me the photo.

Cheap companies didn't want to pay full price for a real Imax system, so Imax came up with the SR for those who wanted to drive a BMW and the MPX for those who would be satisfied with a VW Jetta. I'd say, overall, that Imax did a pretty good job within the constraints. (Evil as they may be )
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-12-2005, 02:14 AM:
 

quote: Adam Martin

---

What is this O.D

---

I am going to take a wild guess on this and say that the O.D. is the Outer Diameter or Optical Diffuser

Like I said that is a wild guess and if I am wrong you can deduct $2,000 off of my score
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 03-12-2005, 02:34 AM:
 

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Where I disagree with you and I think you're dead wrong is about the 1.33 ratio...... pleasing it is not.......

---

I had hoped that the would have expressed the sarcasm behind my comment, just in case the hyperbole and "I mean, really" didn't. I honestly have no convictions toward the 1:1.33 aspect. I think 1:2.35 is a much more dramatic window into a cinematographer's soul. I do not disagree with your comments.

quote: Adam Martin

---

Cheap companies didn't want to pay full price for a real Imax system, so Imax came up with the SR for those who wanted to drive a BMW and the MPX for those who would be satisfied with a VW Jetta.

---

quote: Adam Martin

---

What do you mean? The SR has the same masking plate setup on the spherical lens assembly as the GT and practically the same lenses.

---

quote: Adam Martin

---

Cheap companies didn't want to pay full price for a real Imax system, so Imax came up with the SR for those who wanted to drive a BMW and the MPX for those who would be satisfied with a VW Jetta. I'd say, overall, that Imax did a pretty good job within the constraints. (Evil as they may be )

---

So you are saying that the SR and the MPX are not a real Imax system? I don't know, I have never seen either system. I am assuming they run 15/70?

I'm curious how you would compare the competing 8/70 projectors to cars. I've owned BMW's and VW's, but never any canadian cars

Would the Megasystems be compared to a Touareg because its a 4 wheel drive ?

I'm guessing that the MP75 and Mega 8/70-35 would be compared to some sort of convertable?

5/70 machines maybe a Bug?

35 machines a Mini Cooper?

Rick


 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-12-2005, 04:43 PM:
 

quote: Richard Hamilton

---

Would the Megasystems be compared to a Touareg because its a 4 wheel drive ?

---

quote:

---

Must say that Dick's Bradford IMAX is the best one ive seen, not keen on the other UK theatre, think it is due to Bradford being alot steeper and you are closer to the screen, even thought the screen is smaller, also i believe that 100% of the IMAX frame is seen on the screen, other theatres have slight cropping, did you tell me this Dick!?

---

Darren you're making me blush!
People will talk if you keep writing nice things about me.

As I said above our theatre has a slightly different geometry than most and the throw is proportionally shorter and the seats more steeply raked.

We do show more of the frame than many other IMAX theatres with us going out to the 98% mark on width and about 96 on height.

Some theatres I've seen are nearer the 90% mark.

Richard Hamilton said:

quote: Richard Hamilton

---

So you are saying that the SR and the MPX are not a real Imax system? I don't know, I have never seen either system. I am assuming they run 15/70?

---

quote: Dick Vaughan

---

As for SR's being harder on new prints I have not seen evidence of this in 6 years of us running them here in Bradford

---

Don't know Dick, The machines in Boise damaged quite a bit of film when they were first brought on line. I had quite a bit of that film for a while, it actually looked ok though it would not run well. I finally gave it to a CDC 15/70 location that uses it for test and practice runs, there it runs fine on the clone of the classic Imax and I would suspect it would also run just fine on the actual Imax. Thats what led me to believe that the SR was a bit harder on film... perhaps its just a tad bit fussier though. Either way the smaller rotor had to be on the tricky side to get running at all and then tweeked properly. With the smaller rotor the angles the film is traveling over are a bit more extensive.

Don't know what to say about the lens but I suspect that your ELCAN lenses are alot better than the present stuff.


Below is the CDC lens albiet not a sharp photo but one can easily see the blackened out element O.D.'s.



Mark
 

---

Posted by William Rouse (Member # 3557) on 02-14-2006, 01:13 PM:
 
I have been working with A Megasystems 8/70 for three years now. It has never given me any problems. It has never shredded any prints or failed during a show.
I think it is one fine little Yugo.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-14-2006, 07:34 PM:
 
Richard,

They was one here in SLC and they nicknamed it "The Mother"..... I would assume for certain negative reasons..... Actually the Iwerks Linear Loop is far superior and is also much more light efficient than the Mega although a little noisier in operation. The Mega has a mega number of belts in it which is do-do in my book. Iwerks is also a far superior and much more complete company to do buisness with on these sort of things.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-14-2006, 11:51 PM:
 

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

The machines in Boise damaged quite a bit of film when they were first brought on line. I had quite a bit of that film for a while, it actually looked ok though it would not run well.

---