Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Can someone give me a primer on IMAX 15/70 vs. IMAX digital vs. digital cinema

This is topic Can someone give me a primer on IMAX 15/70 vs. IMAX digital vs. digital cinema 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=000198

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-30-2009, 06:36 AM:

I've never seen an IMAX film in an IMAX theatre, so I don't really know how the experience is different from a regular movie. And to be perfectly honest, I don't know enough about IMAX to know if my subject makes sense.

One of the bigger questions I'm wondering about is how IMAX digital presentation compares to a regular digital cinema presentation - 2K or 4K.

I'm also wondering what exactly it means when major Hollywood releases are also released in IMAX.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-30-2009, 08:40 AM:

Classic IMAX (screens of approximately 60 x 80 feet) is an incredible experience. The image fills the entire field of vision (the "in-the-movie" effect often associated with CINERAMA) and is absolutly rock-steady. The early films often started off with very small pictures in the middle of the screen to lull the audience into thinking it is nothing special, then blooming to full-size as the picture takes off.

Classic IMAX 3-D is still the best of all 3-D systems. This system uses 2-strips of film with a tremendously bright image. The sample trailer for "PAINT MISBEHAVIN'" hung paint blobs right in front of the audience's eyes.

OMNIMAX, or IMAX DOME, projects the image onto a tilted dome. It's a great system with the right films, but tends to seriously distort straight lines. I don't believe there are any in commercial theatres.

MPX was the first mini-Imax. They wanted a system that would fit a standard multiplex. The screens are normally in the 30' by 55' range, MUCH shorter than the original systems. They also eliminated the top-center speaker from the original setup. A special automated projector was invented for this system. Image is very bright and solid. 3-D is also very good. Biggest problem was the large amount of film needed. 3-D releases would often come on over 90 reels and require a long time to process.

Imax-Digital is the newest and most-controversial. It also uses the smaller screens. The system uses 2-2K projectors. The controversy has arisen when people walk into a theatre and expect classic Imax, and they see only the shorter screens. Do to a projection problem, I have seen Digital-Imax with both one and two projectors and I could not see an obvious difference. To my eyes, there isn't much reason to spend an extra $5 dollars per ticket to see Digital-Imax with other theaters showing images as big or bigger with Digital projection. Sound is very good, but nothing really special.

So, if you get a chance to visit a classic IMAX theatre, go. It doesn't matter what film you see (except HAUNTED CASTLE, that's really bad), but go see something in the greatest motion picture process ever invented.

BUT, if its in a multiplex showing 2-D, you can do better other places.

Posted by Fred Tucker (Member # 4482) on 05-30-2009, 04:48 PM:

At my theatre we have 35mm film, a 2k DLP & IMAX Digital. I have seen movies in classic 15/70mm IMAX before but have never seen a MPX projector other than pictures and a scrap piece of film that was given to me. I think to answer your question best it should be divided into 3 parts 1.) picture quality, 2.) sound quality & 3.) value.

1.) The most noticeable difference between 2k & IMAX-D is the brightness, actual resolution is the same (if not less due to the larger screen).

2.) Sound quality in IMAX-D is improved over the 2k DLP, mainly because its an entirely new system. New speakers & amps flat out sound better than the 10 year old EAW drivers & Crown amps that were replaced. Also, sound panels were hung on the side walls (back & front wall already had panels) to help eliminate reverb & bleeding into the auditorium next door.

3.) I really believe you are getting what you pay for. So long as you sit in the front 2/3 of an auditorium you receive a full field of view from the 55' screen where before you had to sit in the front 1/2. The picture is rock steady and the bass will shake your teeth, what more can you ask for.

Major hollywood releases that are released in IMAX have an additional 30-seconds or so of footage that was shot with an IMAX camera. The sound is also supposed to be remixed for IMAX-D (no compression). Other than those two items (& I'm sure there are other minor differences) not much is going to be noticeable to the common movie goer.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-30-2009, 05:17 PM:

If you have never been to a "real" (traditional) Imax, you should try and go before they are all gone. As you know, (real) Imax projects specially shot films with huge cameras that make each frame the size of aprox. 7 35mm frames using special film projectors capable of filling the screen with a bright picture of large size and great quality.

Although for the longest time Imax was synonymous of this huge screen with bright 70mm film 15-perforation-long frames at 24fps, eventually, Imax also equipped a few theaters with a lower cost, lesser system using smaller film projection and smaller film sizes (MPX).

And now, even more recently, Imax started to migrate to all-digital installations. For these it has chosen to use two standard Christie DLP DCI projectors with some propietary hardware to keep them adjusted, to fill screens of a size only slightly larger than average for multiplexes, instead of the huge screens it was known for before.

Now, when a movie is projected on an Imax digital theater, two things can happen:

If it's a regular film finished and distributed in 2K digital, then, projecting it on an Imax system has little difference between your normal digital DCI multiplex. Only differences would be:

-Usually, a slightly larger screen. Using two projectors help in keeping the image bright.

-A potentially slightly less visible screen door effect. Since both projectors can not be 100.00% perfectly aligned, the screen doors from each one will sort-of blurr on the screen as they mix with the image from each-other-projectors.

-If the film is in 3D, you may be treated to a slightly better quality (better brightness, less ghosting, more color resolution, better color depth, no "flickering") than most of the other systems using only a single projector, except Sony, which also excells in many of those parameters in 3D.

Otherwise, it's the exact same 2K-resolution show you get in other theaters, I think.

But sometimes, Hollywood kajoons with Imax and releases a movie as an "Imax" film as well. In this other case, Imax receives film elements (master) directly instead of a precompressed 2K DCI package.

Imax then puts these digital files through their own "image enhancement" processing (grain reduction, smart upsize, smart sharpening), which they call digital remastering DMR, and which ouput they use to print films for their few remaining large format film-based theaters and whatever format (I don't know what it is) they choose for their digital-DCI servers, pbbly a standard 4K DCI package.

I don't know if there is any special processing when playing back those "imax remastered" packages on those servers. My guess, is that they are just downsized again to 2K and sent to each projector, but perhaps Imax sends the pixels in a checkerboard configuration to each one of their two projectors, obtaining a result potentially slightly better than your regular 2K projection with a single DCI projector, perhaps abtaining results similar to a hypothetical 2.5K projector.

Here are some links to info about it all (note that it has a few journalistic errors and has a pro-Imax brownosing tone to it;)):
http://gizmodo.com/5250780/how-regular-movies-become-imax-films
http://gizmodo.com/5271638/a-rare-tour-of-imax-cameras
http://gizmodo.com/5250625/cineplexes-getting-imax-but-is-it-imax-or-conspiracy

This is interesting read before Imax decided to go with two 2K projectors instead of two 4K projectors, like it originally intended:

http://www.secinfo.com/dRX7g.v1Ne.c.htm

If we are to believe that document, and it matches my own calculations, so I do believe it, 35mm (projected 1.85 cropped release print) offers a resolution that is slightly better than 2K (by, say, 5%-10% only), while 4K is almost twice as good as film, so it's a noticeable improvement for people sitting in the first 1/2 of most auditoriums.

Posted by Fred Tucker (Member # 4482) on 05-30-2009, 06:21 PM:

Most but not all of the IMAX-D content is 4k. Not that it makes any difference since the projectors are only capable of 2k and the extra data is "thrown out" to quote IMAX tech support.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-30-2009, 07:56 PM:

I'm sorry guys, but even the original Imax experience is only a small effort compared to Cinerama. I had a private screening at a museum IMAX and they said "Wasn't that wonderful?" I replied, "When will the 2 other screens appear.?" High quality picture, seldom full height, and the sound (Sonics) was inferior to the system I have been installing in 35mm houses. Their bass was distorted and the speakers rattled and bottomed out when the missile launched. Louis

Posted by Fred Tucker (Member # 4482) on 05-30-2009, 08:10 PM:

Very true about not filling the screen top to bottom. I've watched a couple of real IMAX films at the Houston Museum of Natural Science but that was far too long ago for me to comment on sound quality. I have an audio whiz kid working as a projectionist (parents moved and not much of a studio recording scene in Houston) and he is very impressed with IMAX-D's sound. He claims to here no distortion, no clipping and great bass reflex. I'm sure IMAX has gone through a number of manufacturers over the years & hopefully improved in sound quality along the way.

BTW & FWIW I really wish I was old enough to have seen Cinerama back in its heyday. Now that I am in his industry I have developed a great appeciation for what it is and where its been its a shame accountants seem to be calling all the shots though.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 05-30-2009, 08:44 PM:

quote: Fred Tucker
Major hollywood releases that are released in IMAX have an additional 30-seconds or so of footage that was shot with an IMAX camera.

Is this true? I know that The Dark Knight had about 30 MINUTES of footage shot with an IMAX camera, and Transformers 2: A Movie I Will Not See has a few minutes, but afaik, NO other IMAX presentations of regular hollywood features (non-museum) had any special footage. They are basically just 70MM blow-ups that go through some sort of filtering to have the grain reduced.

I also think that one or two had "alterations" made. Wasn't one of the SW Prequels a little shorter in IMAX? And wasn't Apollo 13 cropped to 1.85 to make more use of IMAX screen height?

Also, many IMAX theatres sometimes show 35mm prints on their IMAX screens.

My personal experience has been that IMAX theaters tend to be a little better maintained, perhaps because they are something of a flagship auditorium, or perhaps because of IMAX's involvement.

When you go see a hollywood feature on an IMAX screen, you know you're guaranteed that it will be on a big screen (at least until LieMax). At a typical 'plex, the feature you're seeing might be on a big screen, or it might be on a tiny shoebox.

And, as mentioned, because of the larger gauge film, the image is rock-solid.

From my experience, Imax presentations don't subject you to lame commercials for a half hour before showtime. That's almost worth the extra admission price right there. They also usually do a cool little pre-show demo that shows off the sound system and screen size, that really highlights the equipment.

My biggest complaint about Imax auditoriums is that the steep slope of the auditorium tends to limit (imo) the number of seats with my ideal sightlines, compared to more traditional configurations.

Posted by Fred Tucker (Member # 4482) on 05-30-2009, 09:03 PM:

I was told 30 seconds on average, but now that you mention it probably wasnt the most relaible source.

As far as the incline of the stadium seating, no changes were made so typical AMC big house seating incline that you find everywhere else less several rows of front seats that were removed to make room for the larger screen.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-30-2009, 09:22 PM:

You don't get the 'wow' effect on DMR films because your entire field of vision isn't filled like it is on 15/70 shot IMAX. The image is letterboxed on the full screen as the film has been shot in a different aspect ratio. It is still a lot better than watching a conventional 35mm film even on a big screen. My usual viewing pattern is to watch our rehearsal of the 35mm copy of a film, then get tickets for the IMAX DMR version as soon as I can get decent seats.

The Dark Knight is the only Hollywood film with extensive 15/70 shot footage and that is a truly amazing experience. If the studios had the balls to shoot all their tentpoles in the format everyone would win, but my guess is there are too many inconveniences and not enough talent out there to do it. The documentary 'Cinerama Adventure' suggests this is why only a couple of narrative features were made in the three-strip format.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-30-2009, 09:23 PM:

Yeah, The Dark Knight has been the only "Hollywood film" which actually made full use of short sequences shot in true Imax. Otherwise, "hollywood films" shown in Imax are often identical except they may have had their aspect ratios altered (made more square) or some scenes may have been 3D enhanced (like the superman and harry potter films) or stuff like that.

But most of the time, it's just the same thing.

With Apollo 13, IIRC, they didn't crop the image to make it more square from the theatrical release aspect. They just blew up the negative which was Super-35mm but shot with the whole frame in mind. So, it was actually the opposite: it was kept "as it" and blew up for Imax and it was "heavily" cropped for theatrical release.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-30-2009, 11:35 PM:

quote: Julio Roberto
and smaller film sizes (MPX)

Wrong. All Imax film-based systems use a 15/70 film frame.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-31-2009, 12:10 AM:

quote: Adam Martin
Wrong. All Imax film-based systems use a 15/70 film frame.

Well, not really. All the Imax ridefilm theatres used 35mm (3D) film running side-by-side (Vistavision style) 8/35.

Here is a list of Imax films, some of which were in that format:

http://us.imdb.de/keyword/imax/ride-film/

Here is one with some talk on the technical details:

http://reboot.wikia.com/wiki/ReBoot:_The_Ride

quote:
First, the ridefilm is formatted entirely differently from the TV series. A full 180-degree surround output onto 35mm Vistavision film and projected onto a curved 14-foot screen, which meant the animators could only experience their animation as it would appear by looking through a fisheye lens.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-31-2009, 12:10 AM:

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
Classic IMAX (screens of approximately 60 x 80 feet) is an incredible experience. The image fills the entire field of vision

Not quite. I am one of those people born with two eyes, and as such my field of vision is much closer to a scope ratio than the "way-more-tall-than-necessary" IMAX format. When I watch IMAX movies, my vision is never fully encompassed. I can always see the bottom masking (because they frame the center of action too low) and the sides. It is the ridiculous height of the real-IMAX system that is a waste.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 05-31-2009, 12:22 AM:

Not only is the height "a waste", but also the incredible size of the film frame, with a resolution that, if fully resolved, would be much more than any human could see from any position in an Imax theatre.

I have always imagined the birth of Imax like this: they found a way to make nice projectors running the film side-by-side. They figured "Vistavision" was too wide and decided to go with 70mm film. But the bad news is that they needed at least 15perforations to make the format anywhere near "wide", and yet it's still too tall. So they went with it and a huge screen since such a large frame can be aumented a lot before the grain and lack of resolution starts to be noticeable ....

To me, 8/70 is "just as good or bad for the average human" as Imax. No need to waste all that film. I guess Vistavision or perhaps 70mm/5perf was always the answer for widescreen presentations in terms of quality/price ... but never took off...

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-31-2009, 01:43 AM:

IMAX film should really be 35/70... that is 35 perfs wide projected on a slightly shorter but wider screen. It should also be 30 frames per second. Aww, hell... 48 frames per second.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-31-2009, 03:18 AM:

quote: Fred Tucker
Sound quality in IMAX-D is improved over the 2k DLP, mainly because its an entirely new system. New speakers & amps flat out sound better than the 10 year old EAW drivers & Crown amps that were replaced. Also, sound panels were hung on the side walls (back & front wall already had panels) to help eliminate reverb & bleeding into the auditorium next door.

I disagree -- this has nothing to do with IMAX delivering better sound than any other well-designed sound system. There is nothing proprietary about any of this. In fact, eliminating reverb and bleeding should be standard in every theatre. Nothing that IMAX is offering is any better than the THX specs. They are asking people to pay extra for a good sound system....which is a rip-off. The AMC there at Sheepshead Bay where they just installed LieMax (Lie Maximum) has no better sound that any of their other auditoria which were all refurbished with newer bigger screens and complete sound systems a few years ago. Most of the screens in that plex are as big as their IMAX room. I believe one is BIGGER.

Also, I have not heard or read anything definative that says the IMAX digital versions have a different sound mix than the studios are releasing to standard digital theatres. IMAX certainly don't have more channels than what is currently used in standard soundtrack mixes or enhanced center surround mixes that are available to any exhibitor who installes EX. And by the way, when an exhibitor DOES upgrade his sound system or enlarge his screen, he doesn't charge me an extra freakin five bucks for doing his job.

quote: Fred Tucker
3.) I really believe you are getting what you pay for.

Compaired to what? Like I said, the screen size, the 2K image quality and the sound in the IMAX room in my local multiplex isn't any better than the screen size, image quaity or sound in the other digital rooms in that same cinema. And I get in the other rooms for less than they charge me for the IMAX room -- so what am I getting for what I am paying? The name? The fact that they ripped out the first four rows in the IMAX room? For that they are charging me an extra $5?!

quote: Fred Tucker
So long as you sit in the front 2/3 of an auditorium you receive a full field of view from the 55' screen where before you had to sit in the front 1/2. The picture is rock steady and the bass will shake your teeth, what more can you ask for.

I can sit in whatever row gets me to fill my field of vision in ANY theatre I go by sitting where I want, and I do this at the REGULAR ticket price. I can get my gonads rattled by good subbass in ANY decent theatre and at the REGULAR ticket price. You ask what more can I ask for? I can ask for good picture and good sound at a regular ticket price and not be asked to pay a premium for a LieMax "Experience" which now isn't an experience any different that any other well-run multiplex anywhere.

And PS -- I've seen Cinerama.....and let me tell you, IMAX is no CINERAMA! (Right on Louis!)

Oh yah, one last point -- what is LieMax going to do when AMC installs 4K units in all their rooms? So at the cinema I was referring to at Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn, they will have Sony 4K projectors in all the room except the IMAX....the newly installed IMAX will still be using their double Christie 2K units? Hmmm....this Experience seems to quickly be going into the toilet! Or maybe they'll charge $5 LESS for the 2K IMAX Experience; at least that way we WILL be getting what we pay for.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-31-2009, 09:36 AM:

Back in the '60's, Multi-Image projection was all the rage at World's Fairs and other special venues. This often required a number of projectors. IMAX was conceived as a way of putting all of the images on a single strip of film, greatly simplifying the system. Shooting a film in the process was an afterthought.

The first few IMAX films were very experimental. I believe MAN BELONGS TO THE EARTH was one of the first to have a close-up of a person, as they thought seeing an 80' face would frighten people.

I've seen CINERAMA. The sound system is the best I've heard because of how it was recorded...with a gang of 5 microphones, live. The overture to HOW THE WEST WAS WON sounds like the orchestra was right behind the screen.

I have 2 problems with 3-strip CINERAMA. One is the join lines, as everyone knows. The other is the straight line problem. Straight lines are broken as the cross the joint. To my eye, IMAX gives the better image.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-31-2009, 10:20 AM:

Mark, I agree -- Cinerama had a number of distractions that IMAX did away with as did Todd-AO. Each of the systems have some pitfalls and I guess you just have to pick your poison. The bizzar screen height of IMAX was always a puzzlement to me as it simply didn't follow naturally the panorama of your field of vision, and given the width of Cinerama, it seemed odd that IMAX as so square-ish. But given now what you say about how it was conceived, it makes sense as they weren't trying to mimic Cinerama or Todd-AO as I always assumed.

After my first pissing-my-pants experience with IMAX via NORTH OF SUPERIOR, the second IMAX film I saw was just as you said, a kind of multi-media show -- a variety of smaller images positioned all around the IMAX screen. I don't believe there ever was a single full-frame image on the screen at any time in that movie -- it was always multiple images. After seeing NORTH BY SUPERIOR, I remember very disappointed in this second IMAX movie, wondering where the WOW went. But it follows what you said -- it obviously was what the format was designed for -- a way to present multi-media show on a single strip of film.

There was a single line from that multi-media IMAX film that stuck in my mind all these years and which I thought was pretty profound at the time. Perhaps you folks who are IMAX aficionados will be able to identify the title by this scene: a beautiful woman is sitting at her makeup table, looking intensely at her image in the mirror, slowly running her hand over her face and either it was a voice-over or a subtitle under the picture, I can't remember which, which said: "As soon as you think you've got it all, it slowly begins to slip away." Anyone identify that IMAX film?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-31-2009, 11:34 AM:

ToddAo remains the best format of all time, for me. It has the wide aspect ratio, steadiness, resolution, sound...you name it, it beat its conteporaries...it even went for 30fps out of the gate...only to rebuffed back to 24fps.

What IMAX is trying to create with this LieMax theatres (MPX film based too) are the 70mm experience...the fact is, a 5/70 system would bring all of the visual advantages without the cost disadvantages of a propritary system. Yes, it will still have the cost of 70mm film but at 1/3 the cost of IMAX 15/70 but just about all of the benefits that MPX).

The problem for IMAX though is that they've always shunned 5/70 compared to their 15/70 system. However, when you are only using a wide horizontal image, you don't need the extra height that 15/70 offers.

As to the 15/70 frame...for films like "To Fly" it really worked...things were rather vertical in that movie.

Steve

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-31-2009, 01:31 PM:

Brad asserts his unique birth defect, " I am one of those people born with two eyes, and ...".

Actually, I thought part of the POINT of Imax's height and ratio was that you basically could not see the entire screen. That is, it fills your field of view, and your peripheral vision, too. And you can turn your head some and still not see exit signs and masking and soforth.

Sure, you can debate whether this feeling of immersion is worth the cost of not being able to see the entire frame (but of course, presumably 15/70 DPs protect with this in mind, so nothing critical is happening at the edges), but I think it substantially changes the experience and is part of what makes Imax unique, and indeed, somewhat majestic.

--jhawk

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-31-2009, 01:31 PM:

IMAX films are GREAT for GREAT images...outer space, underwater, explosions to stop oil fires, almost any film involving flight. It doesn't do well for intimate or close objects.

2 guesses on the film Frank is thinking of: ACROSS THE SEA OF TIME (about New York City)or GHOSTS OF THE ABYSS (about the Titanic).

TODD-AO is a terrific system and very practical to shoot and project. I would agree that it is the best all-around.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-31-2009, 02:52 PM:

My guess was also 'Across the Sea of Time (3D)', saw that at the now-closed Trocadero IMAX years ago.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-01-2009, 01:10 PM:

Orignially the 15/70 format was concieved as a way to do the multiimage multi projector presentations of expo67 like labyrinth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1BT1xt6yq8

and a place to stand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNuaE2qaf0Y

on a single film and a single projector
In fact Imax original corporate name was multiscreen and the first IMAX film tiger child only had one or two full frame shots

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 06-17-2009, 05:42 PM:

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
I've seen CINERAMA. The sound system is the best I've heard because of how it was recorded...with a gang of 5 microphones, live. The overture to HOW THE WEST WAS WON sounds like the orchestra was right behind the screen.

I agree completely with that, I have always had the feeling whilst watching Cinerama films of having an orchestra behind the curved screen, amazing.

Wouldn't it be possible to recreate the best of Cinerama and avoid its problems with digital systems? I certainly prefer wide than tall, but 15/70 IMAX (filmed and projected), especially for documentaries, is an impressive system.

I honestly think that anything that is not TV friendly/compatible must be the future. With the huge amount of illegal downloading and HDTV, the best solution seems to point to creating some sort of entertaintment that does not suit small screens at all, both 15/70 IMAX and some sort of very wide 5/70 system seem possibilities. In the UK, Tower Records and Virgin have both closed down, followed by Zavvi who bought Virgin megastores. It just shows that people do not want to pay for their films. Well, the solution is to make films that just cannot be copied or if copied would be unwatchable on portable media or home TV.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-16-2009, 06:37 PM:

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
I honestly think that anything that is not TV friendly/compatible must be the future. With the huge amount of illegal downloading and HDTV, the best solution seems to point to creating some sort of entertaintment that does not suit small screens at all, both 15/70 IMAX and some sort of very wide 5/70 system seem possibilities. In the UK, Tower Records and Virgin have both closed down, followed by Zavvi who bought Virgin megastores. It just shows that people do not want to pay for their films. Well, the solution is to make films that just cannot be copied or if copied would be unwatchable on portable media or home TV.

You're correct from the standpoint that to succeed in any business, you must differentiate. And so a presentation in the theaters which can't be achieved at home is a key to that, which was the original purpose of all the wide-screen and stereo theatrical system to compete with television.

However, we live in an era of synergies and with the large budgets that films have today and the ridiculous costs of marketing them, studios are not going to produce something that can only be played in one type of venue. Theatrical presentation does not pay the cost of most films. So TV and cable broadcast and DVD must be viable.

Having said that, there's nothing out there today that gives me the thrill of 70mm 6-track - either the original Todd-AO version or the blowups of later years with Dolby mag baby boom format. But no one is going to go out there and start shooting again with 65mm cameras (Far and Away killed that idea) - hell, it's hard to get people to shoot 4-perf Panavision.

I don't know how the industry can see its future in HD and Blu-Ray formats, yet produce movies that either have grain the size of golf balls (because they were shot 2-perf or 1.85) or are shot in HD and look like soap operas instead of cinema.

I also don't buy the argument that film and processing costs are such a factor in any of today's big-budget movies. When films have budgets in the $150 million range, the cost of film is probably less than the catering bill.

As far as Virgin and Tower are concerned, they didn't go out of business because people stopped buying DVDs (although DVD sales are in somewhat of a decline). They went out of business because of the numerous problems in the music business, which are too numerous to discuss here and as with most chains, because of debt service.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 07-16-2009, 08:52 PM:

Julio, I think Adam is right. To my knowledge, with the exception of an early demonstration, IMAX has always been 15/70. I wonder if that was a typo regarding VistaVision 35mm, as the tech details lead me to think that an IMAXHD (48fps 15/70) was used. But who knows.

Due to the high cost and relatively limited market for ride films, many were made available in multiple formats such as 8/70 (iWerks), ShowScan, 16mm (Doron SR2), and even LaserDisc (Doron SRV or Thomson Venture).

Often times the marketing from an installation featuring IMAX would get confused with installations that didn't, so much so that often times the ride operators themselves would think they were actually running the IMAX version.

EDIT: A-ha! Did some research and found that indeed, many (though not all) IMAX ridefilm systems did use twin 48fps VistaVision projectors. It seems IMAX operated a subsidiary called Ridefilm™ which operated independently of it's larger IMAX simulation attractions (such as Back To The Future).

Link

quote:
Ridefilm is a proprietary simulation theater system that places you within 18" of the screen, providing you with an entertainment experience that is more dynamic, realistic and immersive than anything else around. Ridefilm's 180º, 18-seat, wraparound screen immerses you and your peripheral vision.

SPECIFICATIONS

* 18-passenger vehicle per theater, Three rows of (5, 6 and 7 seats)
* 3 DOF (degree of freedom) motion base with patent pending orthogonal design
* Screen: 180º, spherically curved, 25' diameter (7.62m), high-gain screen. Height of 14.5' to 16.5' (4.42m to 5.03m) from floor. Gives you the sensation of being in the movies.
* Projection: 35mm, 8-perforation VistaVision® at 48 frames per second (fps), 180º fisheye lens
* Audio: Six-channel digital surround sound
* Films: run approximately five minutes

It appears that IMAX sold many of the Ridefilm™ IP and assets to SimEx.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-16-2009, 09:10 PM:

The Imax ridefilms were indeed 35mm. I believe the Luxor crap was the last to be shut down. I don't even think Imax was servicing those three theaters in the end.

My post *meant* to state that all *current* Imax film systems are 15/70, since we were talking about *theaters* and all.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 07-16-2009, 09:13 PM:

Oh, Hi Adam! [Razz]

Didn't see you come in when I was editing my post.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-17-2009, 01:07 PM:

Yeah, there were a dozen or so (that I know of) of the Imax ridefilm theatres which used the "vistavision" 35mm format. I know, because I did the project for one of them (which later never got built, thankfully).

It looked at some point several years ago they'll be more popular, but never really caught up.

But indeed virtually all film-based "Imax", big or small, have been 70mm 15-perf.