This is topic IMAX at the Regal Colorado Center 9 is the worst I have ever seen 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=000240

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-22-2012, 04:53 PM:
 
12:30pm show, Sunday July 22. Auditorium #9 15/70 IMAX film (not an MPX auditorium).

Problems:
-Very dim xenon bulb with lots and lots of flicker.
-No subwoofer.
-Shitty EQ with emphasis on treble.
-Horrible aperture, fuzz on every edge, some more than others.
-Very soft focus, looked worse than 35mm at pretty much any given theater.

I mentioned my problems to the manager (Leonard, whom I remember being much larger so kudos to him if it's the same guy for the weight loss. Really, I mean it. Good job). But the first thing out of his mouth was "This is film". That was his excuse for how bad it looked. He claimed the xenon bulb was brand new. He did seem to know about the lack of subwoofer but beyond that said that he wasn't going to argue. He did not seem at all interested in correcting the problems. He did give me a refund which I did not ask for, however.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-22-2012, 05:26 PM:
 
Too bad about the presentation quality being sub-par there. I'm wondering how good the 15/70 projection is at the Cinemark IMAX theater in Colorado Springs.

I figure there's four possible theaters where I might be able to check out The Dark Knight Rises in film-based IMAX:
Cinemark 17 & IMAX, Dallas
Cinemark Tulsa IMAX
Cinemark Carefree Circle & IMAX, Colorado Springs
Bob Bullock IMAX Theater, Austin

Does any FT participants have any recent 15/70 show experiences at any of those four theaters?
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 07-22-2012, 06:17 PM:
 
I may have lost my mind if I were there and he says "this is film" as if that is how film looks because it's not up to the superior digital cinema look!
 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 07-22-2012, 08:32 PM:
 
Bobby, you're best bet will the State Museum in Austin.

The three Cinemark theaters converted to digital and then reinstalled 15/70 for Dark Knight. Austin, on the other hand, has operated a GT film projector all along. It and the sound system were optimized for performance last September just prior to the museum hosting the GSCA conference.
 

---

Posted by Michael Putlack (Member # 6523) on 07-22-2012, 08:33 PM:
 
Fuck! I just bought my tickets to see TDKR there for tomorrow night!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-22-2012, 09:38 PM:
 

quote: Joseph L. Kleiman

---

The three Cinemark theaters converted to digital and then reinstalled 15/70 for Dark Knight. Austin, on the other hand, has operated a GT film projector all along. It and the sound system were optimized for performance last September just prior to the museum hosting the GSCA conference.

---

And there's your answer. Translation, assuming that these 3 theaters ever DID have good projectionists (maybe they did, maybe not)...now that they haven't ran film in a long time, the odds of them having a good projection staff still around to handle the 1570 film is slim to none.

Patronize a theater that has been running 1570 nonstop. Your chances of a good show are significantly better.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 07-22-2012, 10:18 PM:
 
I guess I have been beaten down by so many bad movie-going experiences that I didn't find it quite so bad. Or maybe things got worse since I was there. (I was at the 9am on Saturday.) Or maybe I'm not discerning enough. I try!

- I remember noticing that it seemed a little dim in one of the early catwoman scenes, but that was it.
- I did notice the flicker during the end credits, but did not notice it during the film.
- Focus was not an issue for me, nor edge aperture issues.
- Audio was good for me. Though in hind-sight, I guess it wasn't as bass-y as Imax can/ should be.

I was in the fourth row, dead center. Joe, where did you sit?

Should we have a road trip to Colorado Springs to see if they are doing any better?
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 07-22-2012, 10:31 PM:
 
Brad

The Cinemark Dallas brought back its old booth manager to run the 15/70 for the weekend, not sure about the rest of the run. The presentation was as flawless as Dark Knight was 4 years ago
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-22-2012, 11:41 PM:
 
Geoff, yeah it sounds like maybe you're just not a very discerning moviegoer.

It's definitely the worst film presentation I have seen that wasn't also scratched and/or dirty. Regal does not seem to care about their customer's experiences in Colorado.

Cinemark sounds like they care more than Regal does.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-22-2012, 11:41 PM:
 
Jonathan, That's great they bothered to do that, but we all know it only takes one misthread to destroy a print. Is he/she going to run EVERY performance of that print through the run? I'm betting there is no backup projectionist who is truly skilled there anymore.

That being said, the last couple of times I saw a presentation at the Cinemark Webb Chapel it would've earned a poor review due to scratches, incredible amounts of dirt and flat out bad sound.
 

---

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 07-22-2012, 11:48 PM:
 
Um... Regal? The Regal 15/70 in Irvine is threaded by floor staff, *when it's their turn*. No kidding.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-23-2012, 02:22 PM:
 
Hmm. Well I do have some friends who live just north of Austin. They've been bugging me to come down and visit. So this might be a good excuse to do so.

I had a hunch the theater in Austin would be the better bet just for the fact they've been running 15/70mm film all along.

I came close to driving down there to see Mission: Impossible, Ghost Protocol, but stopped short of doing so for a couple different reasons -one of them being complaints about the 35mm source footage looking digital/jaggy.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-23-2012, 02:30 PM:
 
Where's a mofo to enjoy a movie any more? On Blu-ray, that's where. MI4 was much more enjoyable on Blu-ray than it was in digital IMAX, not because of the visuals, but because of the sound. They should call the DigIMAX version MI:4K because that's the predominant audio frequency that will be meeting your ears at a very high decibel rate.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-23-2012, 06:24 PM:
 
Joe, I wish you lived closer so you could drop by here and have a listen to our sound. I know what I like, but it would be good to have a critical listen done by somebody with a good ear who isn't a salesperson.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-23-2012, 06:54 PM:
 
I'll definitely drop by if I'm ever through Montana. I like theater owners like you, actually asking for critique instead of just trying to sweep everything under the rug like the chains do. I'm sure I might catch some small things that we could fix with no money, only a small amount of time.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-23-2012, 09:20 PM:
 
..and have Joe bring his Ivey to really analyze the sound to what he hears.
 

---

Posted by Michael Putlack (Member # 6523) on 07-24-2012, 03:26 PM:
 
I saw TDKR at the Regal Colorado Center 9 yesterday, the 7:30 showing.

-The focus wasn't as crisp as it could have been.
-There were totally no subs!
-The edges looked fine to me.
-There was some horizontal shaking happening throughout the film.
-The print is already starting to collect dust

Great movie though!
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-24-2012, 03:35 PM:
 
This is why film has gone away -- actual doesn't live up to potential -- even IMAX can be done wrong.

My last IMAX experience was horrible. Not just dust, but huge hair in the gate. And horrible, loud, screechy, piercing sound.

(And now, let's see the flames!)
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-24-2012, 03:50 PM:
 
That's not why film has gone away, Manny. Film has gone away for money reasons. Keep in mind that exhibition quality is not something that is generally cared about. It's no secret that the Regal Colorado Center 9 is full of incompetence, though. It's also very true that district manager Tim Campbell has no desire to get it fixed. Check out the pictures here on Film-Tech for the UA Denver Pavilions to see how Tim keeps his booth (captions for the pics are NOT by me, however, and it was a Sunday not a Thursday). The pictures were taken when he was managing the place. This kind of neglect gets you promoted at Regal. This is why out of state Regals are better than Colorado Regals... the DM.

Michael. I got responses using this e-mail:
CQO@IMAX.com
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-24-2012, 10:03 PM:
 
I'd agree that it's probably "all about the money" but the lack of quality showmanship justified it.
 

---

Posted by John Stewart (Member # 989) on 07-24-2012, 11:16 PM:
 
Bobby, I haven't been to the Bullock in a while but the 15/70 I've seen there has been good. And so has the sound.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 07-25-2012, 03:45 AM:
 
Joe, I was curious if you did get a response. What did they have to say? If you posted it on Facebook I missed it.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-25-2012, 04:05 AM:
 
David Keighley from IMAX responded and assured me that everything has been fixed but didn't go into any details. Who fixed it? What was done? And Michael's post above which was not long before the assurance of things being fixed makes me kind of weary. I was offered free IMAX passes but I don't care about that. I'd much rather they just get their act together instead.

I also asked him about Mission Impossible 4 being mixed way too hot in digital IMAX. Not sure if anyone remembers my story about that one. I was told that one had some sound issues initially and I wanted to corroborate that information. He did not comment on that one. I asked again, so maybe next time.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 07-25-2012, 07:09 AM:
 
If he says its fixed quite possibly its already fixed, a few complaints at the imax I work at (3 out of 12,000) customers about it being dark, led to a fly in visit from the local tech with in days of its opening!

quote: Michael Putlack

---

There was some horizontal shaking happening throughout the film

---

quote: Cameron Glendinning

---

The shake mentioned is in the camera work, its hard to run with an huge IMAX camera on a steadicam is my guess! And yes the cinematography does have some moody dark sequences.....

---

quote: Ron Funderburg

---

Bobby My assistant went to screening of Dark Knight Rises at the at your revered Imax at the Warren in Moore Oklahoma and he said the sound was atrocious if any sound was going on in the surrounds you couldn't hear them talk.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

AFAIK, no IMAX-branded screen anywhere has ever met THX certification standards. I'm not a speaker expert, but from outward appearances the speaker systems often used in IMAX theaters have more resemblence to the loud, but poorer sounding giant sized enclosures used in concert venues.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Watch something in IMAX 3D and the image appears soooo much smaller when you put the glasses on.

---

Yep. That's one of the peculiar things about 3D movies. They tend to make the image look small. The more the 3D depth effect is enhanced the more tiny everything seems to look. Our sense of visual scale is tied to our perception of depth.

A 2D movie shot in native IMAX is going to look huge, especially if the imagery has very deep depth of field. Shoot some aerial footage of a big city skyline and tilt the IMAX camera downward. That can make some audience members motion sick or feel like they're going to fall out of their chair and into the screen!

 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-27-2012, 03:13 AM:
 

quote:

---

A 2D movie shot in native IMAX is going to look huge, especially if the imagery has very deep depth of field. Shoot some aerial footage of a big city skyline and tilt the IMAX camera downward. That can make some audience members motion sick or feel like they're going to fall out of their chair and into the screen!

---

That's because 2D actually looks more real than 3D.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-27-2012, 12:57 PM:
 
I've told lots of people that 3-D looks better from closer up, since it fills more of your field of vision etc. I've managed to "convert" quite a few people, but some still insist that it looks better from the balcony, which is 80+ feet away from our 30' screen. I don't see how that could be, but there's no point arguing I guess.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-27-2012, 02:04 PM:
 
There are really people who like to watch 3D from the balcony? That's crazy. I agree completely that much of the effect is lost when one sits in the back of the theatre. In general, I like to sit rather close to the screen, anyway...usually around two screen heights back, which is often the first "real" row of seating in a modern stadium-style theatre (or about 1/3 back in a conventional house).

The best 3D that I have ever seen (and I am not a 3D fan, but I feel the need to give credit here) was the Imax Space Station 3D film, which I saw from the second row.

As for Dark Knight (which I have not seen and have little interest in seeing), I am sort of curious about how the shots were composed. Standard Imax shot composition does not use the rule of thirds, but rather puts the subject of greatest importance in the bottom center of the screen, and everything else just becomes peripheral. Obviously, DK was intended to be watched on conventional screens as well, and I am curious about how a compromise was reached.

Finally, I just don't get the people who don't like the Imax sound system. Maybe they have had bad experiences or there are some bad installations (or mixes), but my personal feeling is that the Imax houses that I have visited (real, 15/70 GT or dome...not Lie-Max or SR) blow away conventional theatres in sound quality. Not just in SPL, but also the feeling of power-without-distortion.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-27-2012, 11:15 PM:
 
Well we don't get you either, Scott! But as you pointed out, all IMAX sound systems are not equal, so you can't really say "I prefer IMAX sound to average-schmoe theater sound". No, you can only say "I prefer that sound of such-and-such an auditorium over other auditoriums, and such-and-such an auditorium just happens to be IMAX".
 

---

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 07-28-2012, 12:13 AM:
 
Did any theatre operator ever attempt to get THX certification for an IMAX theatre? I mean, when THX certification actually meant something.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-28-2012, 05:19 AM:
 
I doubt IMAX would ever allow that.

Also, is it unusual for IMAX operators to open the port glass as they blow out the projector during threading and then start the thing up with the glass still open? They did that at the Colorado Center 9 for whatever reason. Maybe they were using my old manager's logic of cooling off the booth.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-28-2012, 10:54 AM:
 
The advantage of 3-D in IMAX is while the scale does appear to be reduced, the hugeness of the image makes the edges of the frame meaningless. Smaller screens generally must avoid violating the "stereo window," keeping the depth of the action at a given distance. Since that rule need not apply in IMAX, the environment we're watching can extend much farther off the screen without being gimmicky.

Two totally different effects, but each valid depending upon the intent.
 

---

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 07-28-2012, 12:11 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Also, is it unusual for IMAX operators to open the port glass as they blow out the projector during threading and then start the thing up with the glass still open? They did that at the Colorado Center 9 for whatever reason

---

quote: Hillary Charles

---

The advantage of 3-D in IMAX is while the scale does appear to be reduced, the hugeness of the image makes the edges of the frame meaningless. Smaller screens generally must avoid violating the "stereo window," keeping the depth of the action at a given distance. Since that rule need not apply in IMAX, the environment we're watching can extend much farther off the screen without being gimmicky.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Yes, but only if you're lucky enough to be sitting in the middle of the auditorium.

---

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

I remember the IMAX sequences were more impressive in The Dark Knight when they opened up vertically, and there were only a few times in The Dark Knight Rises when I actually noticed that the image was taller. The transition between scope and IMAX were more subtle this time around.

---

Maybe this is due to more footage being in IMAX this time? Also, it seems that more of the transitions were during dark scenes in this one. Plus, the intro of the Joker in The Dark Knight was designed to "stand out" vs. the more James Bond like opening sequence in The Dark Knight Rises.
 

---

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 08-08-2012, 04:55 AM:
 
We took a trip down to the theater mentioned in the title on 8/07 for the 10:45pm and all things considered, found the presentation to fall somewhere between "good" and "very good". I was also quite pleased to find the the print has remained extremely clean and in perfect condition. We had a great time and witnessed something truly amazing!

On a more critical note, I must agree with Joe about there being several illumination issues and quite frankly, it was abysmal. I would not, however, call any part of the picture dim; my problem was with the almost blinding hot spot in the center that gradually faded out more evenly. Perhaps this was an extremely botched remedy to the dim picture Joe spoke of. The flicker he mentioned was present.
I did notice some travel ghost durring the credits but did not notice it elsewhere.
There were also about 20 random, loud "pops" in the sound that occurred about 25 isolated times throughout the screening. Subs seemed great.

The plates certainly were not good but far from the worst i've ever seen. "Acceptable" is how I will rate them.

I must disclose that my review should perhaps be taken with a half-grain of salt. I am sure I saw the presentation thru rose-colored glasses as I have never before seen an actual 15/70 IMAX presentation (barring a handful of nature shorts at the Denver Museum of Nautre and Science which went digital itself about 1 1/2 years ago) and have long feared I never would. Given the fact that I am a full-time theater operator myself with very few nights off and no time for significant ammount of time for travel, this was most likely my last and only chance to cross viewing a 15/70 feature off my bucket list. For this alone, I am eternally thankful and alas, much more forgiving and less critical that I would be of any other presentation. Needless to say, I also have nothing else to compare it to
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-08-2012, 04:17 PM:
 
Sounds like they fixed maybe a couple of issues, or at least the subs. I'm wondering if the film projector was reinstalled a bit too close, resulting in the fuzzy edges. You also described a problem inherent with silver screens, but to my knowledge IMAX does not use silver screens, even in their digital locations.

Also, why are IMAX auditoriums always so small? This one was 350 seats or so. The one at the Luxor in Vagas couldn't have been more than 100 or 150 seats. The Denver museum IMAX seems much bigger. But maybe that's because I haven't been there since I was a kid.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 08-08-2012, 04:29 PM:
 
The 2 Imax theaters capable of 3d which I recently attended did indeed have silver screens and aperture fuzz at the top of the screen.
Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn and Cineplex Scotiabank Toronto.
Both things bug me but to fix aperture fuzz just raise that bitch up a little Why can't they do that?
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 08-08-2012, 08:27 PM:
 
Tony, thanks for posting the update. I've been thinking about going back, and this is encouraging.

Joe, thanks for complaining in the first place.

Geoff "not a very discerning moviegoer" Jones
 

---

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 08-09-2012, 04:22 AM:
 
Joe

All IMAX 3D screens are silver.

Dick
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-09-2012, 08:10 AM:
 
Dick,

Have you forgotten the anaglyph print of 'We are Born of Stars' which ran at Bradford many years ago when you had the original system there? Was that unique, or were there any other anaglyph IMAX films? I've never heard of any others.

Are there any plans to install digital IMAX in Bradford, and if so will it be in addition to, or replacing, film?
 

---

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 08-09-2012, 10:03 AM:
 
nWave rereleased _Encounter in the Third Dimension_ in the ColorCode (yellow/blue) anaglyph process. Initial polaroid release in 1999. ColorCode version release in 2000.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-09-2012, 07:01 PM:
 

quote: Dick Vaughan

---

All IMAX 3D screens are silver.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Thanks for updating my knowledge. That's pretty lame, though. Especially with such large screens.

---

quote: Dave Macaulay

---

I don't know if there is any 3D Dome system operating today, but these use a matte screen and shutter glasses.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Furthermore, I really would love to see some real "made for the Dome" content on the IMAX Dome (aka Omnimax) for once. Wide angle nature scenes work pretty well on the dome, but anything getting to close to the camera looks awfully skewed. I've never seen a feature length movie on an IMAX dome, but I don't think I will like it.

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

Are there any plans to install digital IMAX in Bradford, and if so will it be in addition to, or replacing, film?

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

Have you forgotten the anaglyph print of 'We are Born of Stars' which ran at Bradford many years ago when you had the original system there? Was that unique, or were there any other anaglyph IMAX films? I've never heard of any others.

---

quote: Dave Macaulay

---

Using the shutter glasses along with polarizers gave reduced ghosting with almost no brightness loss, and this was used at the New York Lincoln Square IMAX and possibly other venues. It may have even had a name, "Crystal 3D" or something.
So, yes, there was "Imax" 3D content in 15/70 anaglyph. And yes, currently all Imax 3D screens are silver with their resulting and unavoidable hotspot.
I don't know if there is any 3D Dome system operating today, but these use a matte screen and shutter glasses

---

quote: Sean Weitzel

---

I've never seen a natively shot Omnimax film on a dome screen, I think there were only one or two titles* ever released in true Omnimax but I have seen a few feature length DMR releases projected onto a dome at the Hackworth Imax in San Jose.

---

quote: Edward Havens

---

Did any theatre operator ever attempt to get THX certification for an IMAX theatre? I mean, when THX certification actually meant something.

---

quote: Paul Linfesty

---

The Mitsubishi IMAX Theatre at the California Science Center in Los Angeles opened in 1984, billing itself as the only IMAX Theatre in the world that was THX-certified.

---

So, they had two sound systems present in the same auditorium I guess?

And, they also had a baffle wall for their front speakers?
 

---

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 12-02-2013, 11:18 PM:
 
Did Catching Fire at the Regal Colorado look badly upconverted in the non-IMAX scenes to anyone else?

There where a few scenes where you could clearly make out the pixel structure.
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-03-2013, 07:45 AM:
 
While I did not see it at the Regal Colorado, I did see it in IMAX-D. I wouldn't call the presentation terrible, but it is no IMAX 15/70 that's for sure.
 

---

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 12-03-2013, 10:14 AM:
 

quote:

---

… but it is no IMAX 15/70 that's for sure.

---

Nothing is.
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-03-2013, 07:22 PM:
 
Lol, nothing comes close to 15/70 although IMAX is claiming that there new laser projector system will exceed it. We'll have to see what happens I guess.

I am not against Liemax as generally you kind of know what you are going to get. The theatre I attended was a purpose built IMAX theatre inside a multiplex. The picture was very bright and some of the images looked fantastic while some of them did not. There were a few scenes where the filmed in IMAX sequences looked great in Catching Fire while some others were not so great. The screen was about 65-70 wide and I would say 50 feet tall? It was not a mammoth purpose built screen it was on the smaller size that is for sure. Overall I found the showing to be pretty good, I like the fact that I do not have to watch any commercials in an IMAX presentation just the actual upcoming IMAX trailers and there only two of them, I also liked that there was reserved seating, and the sight lights from anywhere in the rear six rows were pretty decent.

Funny enough, the largest theatre in this complex has a screen that looked to me to be something like 80 feet wide in scope. It was a former THX house. I guess IMAX can't claim "The world's largest screen" at this location
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-04-2013, 10:57 AM:
 

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

I am not against Liemax as generally you kind of know what you are going to get.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Bobby, that is bullshit I know exactly what I am going to get with IMAX in my area.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Their theater map shows 4 theater types: IMAX 3D, IMAX, IMAX Dome and Coming Soon. No difference between film or digital.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

or any of its advertising between true IMAX theaters equipped with 15-perf 70mm film projection and those that are merely digital.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

IMAX does not have anymore 15/70 MPX IMAX locations, that is fact, there is no getting around this fact.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Bobby, I think you need to educate yourself a little before you start calling someone dense. You are starting to get a little annoying.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Instead, you're here to cheerlead the IMAX brand, or troll, or both.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

the facts are that IMAX is making more money than they have ever made in past

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

It appears that you get all worked up about it, it seems that it really bothers you. I simply do not care to get myself worked up over it.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

I personally do not care if people in Austin Texas are confused in whether they are seeing IMAX digital or 15/70, I don't live there nor does it matter to me. What matters to me is what is happening in my area to me.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

That's due more to an increase in locations, diluting their "brand," taking over the biggest screen (and therefore having the best bookings) in a complex, and lowering their standards than it is to people being fans of Imax. If all Imax theaters were the quality they used to be, they'd be growing but not as fast as they can by whoring out the brand to "multiplex" theaters that are willing to cooperate in cheapening the Imax brand.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

That's due more to an increase in locations, diluting their "brand," taking over the biggest screen (and therefore having the best bookings) in a complex, and lowering their standards than it is to people being fans of Imax.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

There are other factors involved.

---