Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: AMC to Install 100 Imax 3D Digital Units

This is topic AMC to Install 100 Imax 3D Digital Units 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=000175

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-07-2007, 06:10 AM:

In an article in the 12/07/07 NY Times, AMC and IMAX announce that they will be installing 100 Imax 3D digital units in 33 cities. These will be in existing locations. IMAX will pick up the cost of the $500,000 projector, and AMC will pay to retrofit the auditoriums. No dates are given for any installations.

In 2006, IMAX lost $16.8 million on revenue of $129.5 million. The AMC deal is expected to add $35 million in cash yearly. AMC and IMAX will divide the revenue according to a pre-existing formula that they decline to describe.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 12-07-2007, 10:01 AM:

I heard that the Imax digital is based on 2K DLP . . . . . I wonder if they are replacing any of the existing MPX machines?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-07-2007, 11:50 PM:

"IMAX" and "DIGITAL" are two words that don't belong in the same sentence. I'm not sure what to think of this yet.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 12-08-2007, 04:52 AM:

The test set up at AMC in Mississauga, according to information given by Brian Bonnick of IMAX at the GSCA conference in September, is based on Christie 2k projectors.

There was talk of them using Sony 4k projectors but my undestanding is that these can't cope with lamps large enough to fill an IMAX screen.

It was also stated at the conference that MPX operators would be given the opportunity to swap out for the IMAX Digital projectors and my guess is that many of the MPX sites scheduled for installation after July '08 will have digital setups from the off.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-08-2007, 05:42 AM:

So how exactly is 2K DLP considered IMAX? Don't they go out of their way to explain to patrons that they are NOT watching IMAX whenever they show something in 35mm on the "big screen"? What's the difference? So now we can put a picture on the screen with a lower resolution than 35mm, and all of a sudden since it has the IMAX name slapped on the side of the projector... it IS IMAX? WTF? Why not just put the IMAX name on the side of the 35mm projector and save all of that money?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-08-2007, 09:20 AM:

Actually its a step in the right direction for troubled Imax as the cost of the film system is what has killed many an Imax or deterred others from having Imax.

It won't be just one 2K projector attempting to fill an Imax screen... it'll be 4 or 8 or 10 of them each in its own quadrant or area of the screen. Since it is possible to adjust the image sizing on the DMD's right down to the pixel blending many DLP projectors into a single image is very simple. Christie and others also have a feature known as Constant Light Output) or CLO so keeping all those projectors at the same light level will be simple once they are all calibrated. It will be a massive system to set up and calibrate although once setup the D-Cinema projectors are actually very stable in terms of color space and light level.

If Imax can't make this work and generate more revenue then they are ultimately doomed as losses have been too high for many years in the running.

So much for Sony...

Mark

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-08-2007, 09:45 AM:

That sounds interesting, but what will the image resolution be?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-08-2007, 11:46 AM:

It depends on how the image is split up and how it is fed to the projectors. If they use 4 projectors it will be the same resolution as 4K, 8 projectors takes it up from there and so on.... the amount of data becomes formidable after 4K though. I don't know what the limitation is on scans either so they may be developing gear to do even higher resolution scans than 4K. At least one would hope so....

Imax was always a formidable system and I doubt the digital version will be any thing less.

Mark

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-08-2007, 12:15 PM:

What is the resolution of the DMR scanning process? Anyone know?

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 12-08-2007, 05:46 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
It won't be just one 2K projector attempting to fill an Imax screen... it'll be 4 or 8 or 10 of them each in its own quadrant or area of the screen

Actually the report I heard was that it was only 2 2K projectors - I didn't follow up to find out if they were stacked or edge blended, but the sense I got was they were stacked . . . . . . if the end result is only 2K resolution I don't see much benefit over normal digital cinema (besides marketing) . . . . .

I'm sure most of the drive to come up with a digital solution is print costs and not a better picture (not to mention the big chains wish to move towards unattended booths).

Hopefully the 2 2K system is for use on "Imax Lite" and not full blown Imax.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-08-2007, 08:23 PM:

It was my understanding that even the equipment manufacturers will admit that 2k DLP is "almost as good as 35mm film." Does Imax claim that this technology that is "almost as good as 35mm film" is somehow equivalent to 15/70? If not, then why call it Imax? If so, then something seems very wrong.

If they are actually using an array of 2k machines to fill a giant screen with an 8k or 12k image, then their marketing department needs to explain what they are doing, since that would be very impressive (but probably still a step down from 15/70). I'm not sure that the data rate would be a problem if they had a separate server for each projector and some mechanism to synchronize them. If a single 2k projector/server system is (say) $100k, then it probably wouldn't be unreasonably expensive to have a 4x3 array of them for an Imax screen.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-10-2007, 10:07 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
it'll be 4 or 8 or 10 of them each in its own quadrant or area of the screen

WOW!... Well, considering I know about as much about IMAX as the average viewer, looking into one of those cool view windows, I'm wondering what that does to the real cost of operation.

If IMAX is concerned about $20,000 prints, what does 4-10 digital projectors mean in maintenance, bulb and electricity costs? If a bulb lasted 6 months and had to be replaced twice a year, you'd have pretty much blown that print cost, wouldn't you?

Over the long haul, how hard is it to maintain even illumination across the screen, when you're using that many light sources? I know they do this on temporary venues all the time... but on a permanent basis? Can you automate, lose the projectionist and really keep that many machines looking like one huge one?

Considering what IMAX was(is) supposed to be, compared to traditional theatres, is film cost that big a deal? Compared to how long a print lasts in an average IMAX theatre, and the number of people the place is designed to serve per-performance, do traditional theatres go through fewer dollars worth of film in a year, making IMAX so much more expensive by comparison?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-10-2007, 02:22 PM:

If they use 4 projectors lamp cost will be 4X what ever a 3kw or a 4kw lamp costs. Lamp cost all really depends on how many projectors they decide to operate.

I find it hard to believe it wold be done with a single 2K projector... Imax definately isn't stupid and Dick Vaughn did mention "projectors" as in plural in his post. They'd better be attempting something along the lines of one huge video wall or it would probably sink the company.

Light level is tracked automatically and extremely accurately by the CLO lamp feature available which is standard at least in the Christies. Its an option in the Barco DP-100 though.

Image alignment is easy since it can be done to the exact pixel.

All in all Imax needs to generate some revenue to keep existing and this is a good way to do it provided they are not using a single 2K machine.

The Sony's would never work for this... and with a price in excess of 130K it wold be way too expensive and then you have to put up with all the crap from Sony and so on...

Mark

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-10-2007, 02:47 PM:

Light levels can be matched between two projectors, but light levels aren't the same across the screen with one projector. So can one assume that we'll be treated to a big image with a bunch of spots that are lighter than others? Or can they use some kind of a diffuser or beam splitter or whatever to smooth out the intensity & brightness of light across the image?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-10-2007, 03:21 PM:

Couldn't you project an all-white image and then measure (with a camera or very sensitive light meter with a computer interface) and adjust (electronically) the brightness of each and every pixel to achieve a perfectly uniform field? Would this work with a silver screen?

(Do the MPX installations all have silver screens?)

Anyway, this could be really great if they actually took advantage of the strengths of the technology, but I agree that it will absolutely destroy the Imax brand (and company) if they aren't able to make it comparable to or better than 15/70 presentations.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-10-2007, 07:12 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Light levels can be matched between two projectors, but light levels aren't the same across the screen with one projector. So can one assume that we'll be treated to a big image with a bunch of spots that are lighter than others? Or can they use some kind of a diffuser or beam splitter or whatever to smooth out the intensity & brightness of light across the image?

Actually the light eveness of a D-Cinema projector is about 100 times better than even the best of film projecton systems. Every D-Cinema projector has whats called an integrator rod in the light path right after the lamphouse. It is made from either fiber optics or special optical glass. This integrator rod acts like a mixer or blender and causes the light falling on the DMD's to become extremely even... all the hot spots and such are essentiually eliminated. I feel this is one reason many prefer the look of digital.... the light is absolutely wonderful and super even... also flickerless... another reason in my book that gives it a pristine look.

I would love to add an integrator rod into a film projection light path!!

Since many of you have never seen the insides of a D-Cinema projector here is the light optical path of the Barco DP-100.... The integrator rod is the 10" long black circular piece in about the center of the image... the input aperature is at the right on the heat sink with the green hoses connected to it.. The integrator feeds light to the fold mirror at the left and up into the light engine which is enclosed in the obliquly mounted anodized box. The Constant Light Output sensor is mounted in the small box on the back of the fold mirror where you can see the orange wires.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-11-2007, 07:03 AM:

So why aren't these available (perhaps as extra-cost options) for film projector lamphouses?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-11-2007, 08:29 AM:

The integrators do eat up some light but not that much... they ar eexpensive... about a grand... Film lamphouse people have ALOT of catching up to do!!!

Mark

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-11-2007, 08:36 AM:

That's cool! I'd also like to see what that could do for a 35mm show. We have a couple of houses that suffer from somewhat uneven light distribution.

My next question is, how good are the controls for the dimensions of the image on the screen? I'm sure lining up the images by pixels seems like it would be easy (although I thought we couldn't see pixels?), but the curvature of the screen, and angle of the projector and what not would make the shape of the images on the screen pin cushion and key stone in a way that would make them impossible to line up along every edge unless you have extremely precise control of those settings. And what happens if some boob bumps one of the projectors after you spent all that time lining them up?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-11-2007, 09:07 AM:

When you adjust the screen image size you go to the exact pixel... there is actually "Digital RP40" for that adjustment... screen masking adjustment is also as accurate and these are digital adjustments... not some analog thing that drifts, set it and it stays for ever or until you change it again.

I don't know if light measurements at many points within the projector is possible or needed since the CLO measurement units are essentially a box with a white interior to diffuse the incoming light that is read bby the sensor within. Throw money at something though and I suppose you could do anything. As it stands the Christie Lite-Loc automatic bulb adjustment is pretty darn accurate although a little on the slow side.... take about 3 to 4 min. to run it. It is also possible to manually adjust the lite-loc using something like the USL screen meter which does read the screen at many points simultaneously..

Posted by James. R. Deeter (Member # 837) on 12-11-2007, 10:04 AM:

The IMAX Digital will use 2 projectors

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-11-2007, 10:40 AM:

quote: James. R. Deeter
The IMAX Digital will use 2 projectors

Stacked I would assume.... R.I.P. IMAX!

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-11-2007, 11:07 AM:

Note that if these are going into commercial theatres, they are likely to be of the "Imax Junior" variety. The MPX units I have seen use a screen about 50' wide and they are approximately 1/2 the height of a traditional IMAX screen. And, they will be running mostly commercial films that will not fill even that screen.

I still don't see how 2-2k units can duplicate 15/70, but I'll wait and see when it comes out...Cincinnati Newport isn't a very long drive.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-11-2007, 11:31 AM:

I have my doubts on this.

We'll have to see if the general public thinks it's good enough.

Posted by David Graves (Member # 4069) on 12-12-2007, 12:39 AM:

i'm confused- since they're converting what i assume are larger amc houses (big 4?), which are usually side masked if i recall, doesn't that mean the picture will actually be smaller, since they can't expand the ceiling up to make the screen taller? doesn't sound like much of an upgrade...

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-12-2007, 05:16 AM:

The local AMC 30 put the IMAX unit in one of the center large rooms (#14). There is a new screen that is about as wide as the original one but somewhat taller. They also shortened the room by taking out the entire front section of seats. Now, only the stadium seating section remains, so they lost well over 100 seats. Imax sound system was installed, including rear corner speakers, although the side speakers remain. The screen is not wall-to-wall, as there is an aisle down the right side of the screen. The 35mm projector is still in place.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-12-2007, 08:17 AM:

To me all this is an indication of just how desperate Imax actually is....

Mark

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-12-2007, 08:33 AM:

If it's really just two "almost as good as 35mm" 2k Christies, then I agree with the others that this is a dumb idea and is destined to fail. It will also hurt the real 15/70 houses when people go to the AMC "Imax-lite" and then decide that Imax sucks, not realizing that there are different flavors of Imax.

This is pretty sad, especially when the technology exists to do something really impressive, maybe even better (eventually) than 15/70 is now.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-12-2007, 11:42 AM:

There is something else here if you read in between the lines... And that is the whole Sony aspect of this... Now if you stacked two Sonys there is no doubt that you'd have plenty of light for that size screen... although Christie's digital projector plant is literally and conveinently located right down the road a piece from Imax and is now one of Canada's largest employers... certainly an important aspect to the Canadian Government! Now the larger Sony 4K is capable of 16,000 lumens running on two lamps [Big Grin]

so two are going to get you 32,000 lumens with 4 lamps burning [Razz]

which is more than plenty of light. What that says to me is that no one is taking Sony seriously with their 4K stuff. The other obvious indication is the deal with AMC to install a bunch of 4K Sony projectors... Now no one believes that AMC actually bought any of those projectors.... Sony owes AMC ALOT from the SDDS debacle. At Show East neight Vince nor myself nor two of our customers could even get a real price out of Sony for the bigger 4K system... all we could get was a guess of around 130K. Indeed Sony seems like they are about to blow it again.

Mark

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 12-12-2007, 11:31 PM:

quote:
Sony 4K is capable of 16,000 lumens running on two lamps [Big Grin] so two are going to get you 32,000 lumens with 4 lamps burning

It was pointed out to me in another thread that the new Sony projectors use only one 4.5k lamp. It looks as though a 6K lamp is not an option. This is probably due to heat issues. But, the fact remains that the SXRD projector can only achieve 16,000 lumens at best.

Either way, using any of the current market digital equipment to replace 15/70 will result in a compromise and loss of quality.

But, there are a few positives:
-No more dust showing up on the field flatteners to distract from the show.
-Picture steadiness will be improved (MPX isn't rock solid when compared to a GT or even an SR system)
-Overall cost of operation and ownership will be improved over the current systems, as well as less room needed to support the system.

Posted by Dan Reiter (Member # 1386) on 12-13-2007, 07:51 AM:

Back to the integrator idea...

It's a concept I thought about years ago when DC first was introduced. From a light standpoint, the idea of eveness is fully merited. It is a full extension of the cut-down reflector concept. But, what about the lenses? With light no coming in straight, with no F2, how would this affect the projection lens? Yes, the BFL will still be there, but without the spread caused by the reflector, wouldn't a new lens design be needed to spread out the light? Also, wouldn't these lenses need to be of a larger diameter, probably a conpromise between our current 35mm size and the much larger size of the current DLP lenses?

Just some food for thought..... [beer]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-13-2007, 10:36 AM:

I don't see any more involved than some light loss althogh someone like Glenn Berrgren could probably come up with a more efficient lens for this purpose. You're still projecting the same image illuminated from behind as always and I think the film itself does more to diffuse the incomming rays of light than we think. Many older type telecines had a diffuser plate behind the gate in attempt to smooth the light across the aperature, and yes the light levels involved were very low compared to cinema but the standard lenses used didn't exhibit any strange tendencies because of the rear dffuser involved.

Mark

Posted by Edwin Graf Diemer (Member # 545) on 12-13-2007, 05:06 PM:

Here is the list of the 50 initial installations...

MARKET AMC THEATRE

ATLANTA AMC Barrett Commons 24
AMC Southlake Pavilion 24
BALTIMORE AMC Columbia Mall 14
AMC Loews White Marsh 16
BOSTON AMC Loews Boston Common 19
CHARLOTTE AMC Concord Mills 24
CHICAGO AMC South Barrington 30
AMC Loews Crestwood 18
CINCINNATI AMC Newport on the Levee 20
DALLAS AMC Mesquite 30
DENVER AMC Highlands Ranch 24
AMC Orchards 12
AMC Westminister Promenade 24
HOUSTON AMC First Colony 24
AMC Gulf Pointe 30
JACKSONVILLE AMC Orange Park 24
AMC Regency Square 24
KANSAS CITY AMC BarryWoods 24
AMC Independence Commons 20
LOS ANGELES AMC Burbank 16
AMC Century City 15
AMC Del Amo 18
AMC Promenade 16
AMC Puente Hills 20
AMC Santa Anita 16
MIAMI AMC Aventura 24
AMC Sunset Place 24
AMC Elmwood Place 20
NEW YORK AMC Loews 34Th Street 14
AMC Empire 25
AMC Loews Kips Bay 15
AMC Rockaway 16
AMC Loews Stony Brook 17
AMC Loews Monmouth Mall 15
NORFOLK AMC Lynnhaven 18
ORLANDO AMC Altamonte Mall 18
PHILADELPHIA AMC Loews Cherry Hill 24
AMC Hamilton 24
AMC Neshaminy 24
PITTSBURG AMC Loews Waterfront 22
SAN DIEGO AMC Palm Promenade 24
SAN FRANCISCO AMC Bay Street 16
AMC Eastridge 15
AMC Mercado 20
SEATTLE AMC Loews Alderwood 16
AMC Southcenter 16
TAMPA AMC Veterans Expressway 24
WASHINGTON D.C. AMC Hoffman Center 22
AMC Potomac Mills 18
AMC Tysons Corner 16

It will be very interesting to see what happens here-the Monmouth Mall 15 (New Jersey) is just a few minutes from me, and I worked the booth when it opened. House 14 is the largest, and the screen is 42-44 feet wide with little area left at the sides for enlarging it. Perhaps they plan to "combine" some of the smaller auditoriums? Hummm....

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-13-2007, 11:23 PM:

The above list is, in my opinion, difficult to read due to a loss of formatting during the copy-and-paste process. Here's a cleaner version.

ATLANTA
AMC Barrett Commons 24
AMC Southlake Pavilion 24

BALTIMORE
AMC Columbia Mall 14
AMC Loews White Marsh 16

BOSTON
AMC Loews Boston Common 19

CHARLOTTE
AMC Concord Mills 24

CHICAGO
AMC South Barrington 30
AMC Loews Crestwood 18

CINCINNATI
AMC Newport on the Levee 20

DALLAS
AMC Mesquite 30

DENVER
AMC Highlands Ranch 24
AMC Orchards 12
AMC Westminister Promenade 24

HOUSTON
AMC First Colony 24
AMC Gulf Pointe 30

JACKSONVILLE
AMC Orange Park 24
AMC Regency Square 24

KANSAS CITY
AMC BarryWoods 24
AMC Independence Commons 20

LOS ANGELES
AMC Burbank 16
AMC Century City 15
AMC Del Amo 18
AMC Promenade 16
AMC Puente Hills 20
AMC Santa Anita 16

MIAMI
AMC Aventura 24
AMC Sunset Place 24
AMC Elmwood Place 20

NEW YORK
AMC Loews 34th Street 14
AMC Empire 25
AMC Loews Kips Bay 15
AMC Rockaway 16
AMC Loews Stony Brook 17
AMC Loews Monmouth Mall 15

NORFOLK
AMC Lynnhaven 18

ORLANDO
AMC Altamonte Mall 18

PHILADELPHIA
AMC Loews Cherry Hill 24
AMC Hamilton 24
AMC Neshaminy 24

PITTSBURG[H]
AMC Loews Waterfront 22

SAN DIEGO
AMC Palm Promenade 24

SAN FRANCISCO
AMC Bay Street 16
AMC Eastridge 15
AMC Mercado 20

SEATTLE
AMC Loews Alderwood 16
AMC Southcenter 16

TAMPA
AMC Veterans Expressway 24

WASHINGTON D.C.
AMC Hoffman Center 22
AMC Potomac Mills 18
AMC Tysons Corner 16

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-14-2007, 07:00 AM:

Gee, I didn't know Washington DC, a mere city, had cities within it!

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-14-2007, 07:37 AM:

Doesn't it have suburba like all other sities do?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-14-2007, 09:20 AM:

I'm glad our theater isn't listed.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-14-2007, 10:59 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Gee, I didn't know Washington DC, a mere city, had cities within it!

For those who appear challenged by the concept of "markets" [ [Razz]

], here's a state-by-state, city-by-city version of AMC's announcement.

CALIFORNIA
Arcadia: AMC Santa Anita 16
Burbank: AMC Burbank 16
City of Industry: AMC Puente Hills 20
Emeryville: AMC Bay Street 16
Los Angeles (Century City): AMC Century 15
Los Angeles (Woodland Hills): AMC Promenade 16
San Diego: AMC Palm Promenade 24
San Jose: AMC Eastridge Mall 15
Santa Clara: AMC Mercado 20
Torrance: AMC Del Amo 18

COLORADO
Highlands Ranch: AMC Highlands Ranch 24
Westminster: AMC Orchards 12
Westminster: AMC Westminster Promenade 24

FLORIDA
Altamonte Springs: AMC Altamonte 18
Aventura: AMC Aventura 24
Jacksonville: AMC Regency Square 24
Orange Park: AMC Orange Park 24
South Miami: AMC Sunset Place 24
Tampa: AMC Veterans Expressway 24

GEORGIA
Kennesaw: AMC Barrett Commons 24
Morrow: AMC Southlake Pavilion 24

ILLINOIS
Crestwood: AMC Loews Crestwood 18
South Barrington: AMC South Barrington 30

KENTUCKY
Newport: AMC Newport on the Levee 20

LOUISIANA
Harahan: AMC Elmwood Place 20

MARYLAND
Baltimore: AMC Loews White Marsh 16
Columbia: AMC Columbia Mall 14

MASSACHUSETTS
Boston: AMC Loews Boston Common 19

MISSOURI
Independence: AMC Independence Commons 20
Kansas City: AMC BarryWoods 24

NEW JERSEY
Cherry Hill: AMC Loews Cherry Hill 24
Eatontown: AMC Loews Monmouth Mall 15
Hamilton: AMC Hamilton 24
Rockaway: AMC Rockaway 16

NEW YORK
New York (Manhattan): AMC Empire 25
New York (Manhattan): AMC Loews 34th Street 14
New York (Manhattan): AMC Loews Kips Bay 15
Stony Brook: AMC Loews Stony Brook 17

NORTH CAROLINA
Concord: AMC Concord Mills 24

PENNSYLVANIA
Bensalem: AMC Neshaminy 24
Homestead: AMC Loews Waterfront 22

TEXAS
Houston: AMC Gulf Pointe 30
Mesquite: AMC Mesquite 30
Sugar Land: AMC First Colony 24

VIRGINIA
Alexandria: AMC Hoffman 22
McLean: AMC Tysons Corner 16
Virginia Beach: AMC Lynnhaven 18
Woodbridge: AMC Potomac Mills 18

WASHINGTON
Alderwood: AMC Loews Alderwood Mall 16
Tukwila: AMC Southcenter 16

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-14-2007, 12:58 PM:

Sorry Michael...I never like to give DC more credit than its worth. Yes, those are in the DC market, of course...just all of the airports listed as Washington (WAS) area are in either Viginia or Maryland (BWI, DCA, IAD). Since DC has been seeking statehood for awhile now, it is more of a rub to remind them they are a mere city and not that big of one...as compared to say NYC.

Steve

Posted by Edwin Graf Diemer (Member # 545) on 12-14-2007, 10:03 PM:

Thanks for reformatting the list, Michael-I tried to correct it when I did the post, but it wouldn't "hold".

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-15-2007, 08:11 PM:

You're welcome.

What I'd really like to know is who at AMC Entertainment thinks that Harahan (near New Orleans) is in the Miami market! [Big Grin]

Posted by Dennis M Dow Jr (Member # 1970) on 05-29-2008, 12:11 PM:

If the list of sites is accurate, none of the NYC (34th, Empire, Kips) has Imax screens in them. If all they are doing is converting the largest screens in these complexes, then to me this is false advertising.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-29-2008, 12:43 PM:

Neither does the Neshaminy 24 in Philly.

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 06-04-2008, 01:23 PM:

The AMC Sunset Place is in the same mall where IMAX operated a full size GT 455-seat theatre from 1999 to 2003. This screen will certainly be much smaller.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 06-05-2008, 11:22 AM:

When are these conversions scheduled to take place? I am particularly interested in the AMC Neshaminy in PA since that is closest to me.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-07-2008, 08:43 AM:

I guess some of these theaters could show the IMAX film on the outside wall of the theater from the parking lot. That may approach an IMAX sized image.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-07-2008, 03:48 PM:

If these digital units put out the same size picture as the MPX units, they will easily fit in a large AMC room. The screen I know is about 50' wide and goes almost from floor to ceiling. It was put into an AMC 30 in one of the four largest rooms. The floor seating in the room was pulled.

That's why I always call this room an Imax Jr. They don't even try to put in a full size Imax screen.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-07-2008, 04:50 PM:

I'm growing more skeptical if this "conversion" will actually happen. If the screens aren't going to be true IMAX sized that means they won't be much bigger than a conventional movie screen, just taller. Add another factor to the problem: many of the shows are mere DMR blow ups from 35mm or HD video.

The authentic IMAX experience is seeing a movie with an immense level of detail projected on a giant sized screen. A pair of digital projectors and big but not giant screens isn't going to deliver on that. They'll slap the "digital" buzzword in there to lie to people and that will be about it.

Posted by Edwin Graf Diemer (Member # 545) on 06-07-2008, 06:13 PM:

From the IMAX website; here are the current opening months for the first wave of AMC installations. Nothing is listed for December yet...

Theatre Address City State Zip Country
Coming July 2008

AMC Columbia 14 10300 Patuxent Parkway Columbia MD 21044 US
AMC Hoffman 22 206 Swamp Fox Road Alexandria VA 22314 US
AMC Potomac Mills 18 2700 Potomac Mills Circle Woodbridge VA 22192 US

Coming August 2008

AMC Cherry Hill 24 2121 Route 38 Cherry Hill NJ 08002 US
AMC Hamilton 24 325 Sloan Avenue Hamilton NJ 08619 US
AMC Neshaminy 24 3900 Rockhill Drive Bensalem PA 19020 US

Coming October 2008

AMC Altamonte Mall 18 433 E Altamonte Drive Altamonte FL 32701 US
AMC Aventura Mall 24 19501 Biscayne Blvd. Aventura FL 33180 US
AMC Boston Common 19 175 Tremont Street Boston MA 02111 US
AMC Concord Mills 24 8421 Concord Mills Blvd. Concord NC 28027 US
AMC Empire 25 234 West 42nd Street New York NY 10036 US
AMC Orange Park 24 1910 Wells Road Orange Park FL 32073 US
AMC Regency 24 9451 Regency Square Blvd. Jacksonville FL 32225 US
AMC Sunset Place 24 5701 Sunset Drive South Miami FL 33143 US
AMC Veterans 24 9302 Anderson Road Tampa FL 33634 US
AMC White Marsh 16 8141 Honeygo Blvd. Baltimore MD 21236 US

Coming November 2008

AMC Bay Street 16 5614 Shellmound St. Emeryville CA 94608 US
AMC Burbank 16 125 E Palm Avenue Burbank CA 91502 US
AMC Century City 15 10250 Santa Monica Blvd. Los Angeles CA 90067 US
AMC East Ridge Mall 15 2190 Eastridge Loop San Jose CA 95122 US
AMC First Colony 24 3301 Town Centre Blvd. S Sugar Land TX 77479 US
AMC Gulf Pointe 30 11801 S Sam Houston Pkwy E Houston TX 77089 US
AMC Kips Bay 15 570 Second Avenue New York NY 10016 US
AMC Loews 34th Street 14 312 W 34th Street New York NY 10001 US
AMC Mercado 20 3111 Mission College Blvd. Santa Clara CA 95054 US
AMC Tyson Corner 16 7850 Tysons Corner Center McLean VA 22102 US

Posted by Matthew Williams (Member # 4371) on 06-09-2008, 01:13 PM:

AMC/Loews Cherry Hill has an "AMC IMAX THEATRE COMING SOON" banner up, so the conversion should be starting there soon if it hasn't already.

I'm interested in seeing how they convert the "large" room in this place into an IMAX.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 06-10-2008, 05:45 PM:

First 3 installations are around DC in next few weeks then 3 around Philly.Max screen width around 70 ft with 1 : 1.9 Aspect ratio

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-11-2008, 05:40 AM:

Doesn't one of our members live in Cherry Hill? I can't remember who it was now.

Is this to be a film or digital, or both, house?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-17-2008, 06:21 PM:

It sounds to me like these are aimed solely at playing DMR films with the aspect ratio Dick mentioned. They would have to severly crop any traditional IMAX films to play them in that aspect ratio.

I can speak from experience that 2K digital at 82 X 60 looks pretty darn good as long as one plays back 4K files. With a 1.8 gain screen 2-stacked projectors easily nets 14 fl with room to spare. It also can for the most part be acomplished solely by utilizing "Off The Shelf" lenses that already exist... so IMAX equipment isn't even needed to pull this off. The typical cost for a "Digital Large Format 3-D Print" is about $4,000.00 US compared to $50K or more for a 70mm 3-D DMR film print. So of course they want to get the new digital system in place. Many non-IMAX large format locations will also follow suit and it will open up a whole new world of films for them to play. Others will follow suit by installing "off the shelf" digital equipment with similar screens and setups. The real truth is that Imax is simply not required any longer!

Mark

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 06-18-2008, 06:33 PM:

I couldn't possibly comment

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-08-2008, 09:32 AM:

Has anyone heard what film will debut with the July openings of the Hoffman, Columbia and Potomic Mills screens, I would assume it will be 'Kung Fu Panda', since Nolan did not want 'The Dark Knight: The IMAX experience' to go out digitally?

Posted by Edwin Graf Diemer (Member # 545) on 07-20-2008, 09:34 PM:

All three have opened with "Panda"-hope somebody has the chance here to check them out!

Posted by Thomas Dieter (Member # 2507) on 07-20-2008, 10:23 PM:

quote: Edwin Graf Diemer
Coming October 2008

AMC Altamonte Mall 18 433 E Altamonte Drive Altamonte FL 32701 US

Is this true? The AMC 18 in Altamonte doesn't even have an Imax screen or auditorium? Are they going to retrofit one of their large auditoriums for this?

Why didn't they just do one the the AMC Pleasure Island 24 theatres that way. They have a better setup for that, same with the AMC Universal Lowes 20.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-21-2008, 12:32 AM:

The choice of which theater to convert likely had less to do with "which theater has an easy setup for converting" and more to do with "which theater is the better performer with respect to money."

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 07-21-2008, 02:56 AM:

quote: Thomas Dieter
Is this true? The AMC 18 in Altamonte doesn't even have an Imax screen or auditorium?

Thomas

The IMAX Digital picture aspect ratio will be a new 1: 1.9 as opposed to the "classic" aspect ratio of 1:1.43 meaning that the picture height on a 21.3 metre(70') screen will be 11.2 metres (36' 9")as opposed to 14.9 metres (48'10"). This aspect ratio is even more of a change towards conventional standards than the current film based 1.78 on the IMAX MPX system.

Therefore it is comparatively easy to convert a conventional 35mm auditorium to IMAX digital.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-23-2008, 02:57 PM:

quote:
All three have opened with "Panda"-hope somebody has the chance here to check them out!

I didn't see 'Panda' but I did check out 'Space Station 3D' last Friday - and while I was generally impressed with the image - would you believe 4K DLP (I thought it would have been higher). The sound on the other hand - outstanding! Eight channels behind the screen, two in the corner rear, two in the ceiling - the shuttle blast off's were bone rattlin'! The print though they converted to hard disc drive wasn't pristine, a few speckles here and there - wasn't 100% flawless.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 07-23-2008, 04:28 PM:

[Frown]

Based on Dick's comments above, I don't really feel like reading much more about this IMAX digital.

IMAX was based on filling your field of vision with a bright, steady, and very detailed image. If they are going to a 1.19 aspect ratio and converting existing multiplex screens to play IMAX content, what is the draw??

It's not IMAX, not even close...... I could understand if they were keeping the large format screen, but this is just a marketing thing to try and label the auditoriums IMAX. It's a degradation of what the IMAX brand implies.

[uhoh]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-23-2008, 04:40 PM:

Tristan,

This is just a continuation of the degradation that IMAX already did. People want to pay extra to see [insert big movie here] in IMAX not realizing that IMAX isn't what it used to be.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-24-2008, 06:16 AM:

Dark Knight was a huge step in the right direction though. At least we caught a glimpse of what an IMAX blockbuster could look like before IMAX decided to try to self destruct.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 07-24-2008, 12:08 PM:

A person I work with started calling all of these multiplex-imax theaters IMINimum. I thought it was funny.