This is topic End date for 15/70 IMAX 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=000247

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 06-07-2013, 02:23 PM:
 
Does anyone have some definitive information on when we will see the end of IMAX 15/70?

I was at a purpose built IMAX venue a few days ago, this location was well over 30+ years of age, you could clearly see the age in the facility. The image was good and steady, but the picture did look aged, the movie was produced in the mid 80's (I wonder if it was the original print). The sound was also awesome, not sure if was digital sound (perhaps they are using the mag sound from the 80s). You could tell whoever owns this facility will not be putting more money into it.

Later in the week, I also visited an IMAX theatre in a multiplex, this location was not a retrofit as it was also an IMAX purpose built cinema at the multiplex, this theatre of course was a 15/70 in the past but had just recently changed over to digital, what I saw was god-awful, the movie was Star Trek Into the Darkness and I was actually able to see the digital projectors correcting something about half way through the movie on the left side of the screen.

Now, the last I heard, the Ontario Place IMAX up in Canada (now closed) upgraded their IMAX 15/70 projectors in 2011.

Are we still seeing some purpose built IMAX theatres upgrade like they did at the Cinesphere?

I know Dark Knight Rises got a few projector installs, but I guess that was for special event.

Is 15/70 now pretty much done?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-07-2013, 02:38 PM:
 
I don't know an end date for 15/70, but I imagine it's going to be coming pretty soon. As film manufacturing and printing labs shut down it's going to choke off the supply of new prints.

The current dual 2K projection scheme is definitely a serious downgrade from 15/70 (provided the material being shown in 15/70 was shot that way rather than blown up from a 2K digital intermediate). The only plus I see with current IMAX digital systems is brighter 3D projection. That's it.

There's a fair amount of hype rumbling about the laser projection system IMAX is supposed to transition into using. It's supposedly going to be 4K. I don't know if it will be a dual or single projection system. It might provide a noticeable improvement above the current IMAX digital systems. But I doubt it will show the level of detail 15/70 can show.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-07-2013, 04:22 PM:
 
Doesn't the dome version ("Omnimax") still require 15/70? Or is there a system for the dome screens now?
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-07-2013, 06:04 PM:
 
There is no digital solution from IMAX for the OMNIMAX theaters yet. Actually, there isn't even a digital solution for the big flat screen 15/70 IMAX locations yet, although a 4K solution with laser light sources has indeed been announced some time back.

I guess, for a dome, 4K even isn't really sufficient. If you're running an OMNIMAX venue, you better hold on to your old prints I guess. If you're running motion pictures too (I don't know who wants to see that on a dome, but it is happening...), you might be out of luck.
 

---

Posted by Brian Shull (Member # 4585) on 06-07-2013, 09:06 PM:
 
Actually we developed a single digital projection dome system to replace 15/70 film systems. Two are already installed.

It works well and is a direct replacement for 15/70.

Hollywood films play fine on the systems and incorporates an immerse feeling into the flick.

There are digital dome solutions out there.

Brian
 

---

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 06-08-2013, 11:42 AM:
 
Last I read in LF Examiner, IMAX 4k projectors with laser illumination for dome screen have a projected commercial rollout in the second half of 2015. Flat screens in second half of 2014.

I have not heard a timeframe for conversion or installation at my OMNIMAX (IMAX Dome) location.
 

---

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 06-12-2013, 01:55 AM:
 
Brian could you elaborate more on your single projector solution? What is it based on? Thanks man.
 

---

Posted by Brian Shull (Member # 4585) on 06-13-2013, 10:25 PM:
 
The system is a barco 32B 4K with a lens we designed for this purpose. We are capable of throwing light 180 deg left to right.

It is a replacement image of what the IMAX system projected except with the advantages that digital offers (even light, very stable).

I see you are from Kansas, stop in at the Cosmosphere and check it out.

Brian
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-14-2013, 12:30 AM:
 
So a 4K presentation is equal to 15/70, eh?

Not buying it.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-14-2013, 06:06 AM:
 
Remember Brad, even in film, people have 15/70 alternative "solutions" like 8/70. While they were cheaper...and big screen systems, they were not 15/70. 4K is 35mm 1.85 resolution, not even CinemaScope, let alone 5/70 and forget about 15/70.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-14-2013, 07:03 AM:
 
4K might be equivalent to 35mm 1.85 according to some theoretical comparisons, but subjectively in practice I'd doubt it in most situations. OK, a hand-made, step contact-printed showprint on premium print stock might be, but most the mass-produced release prints that tended to show up in theatres during the final decade of the film era were grainy (due to being high-speed printed and then push-processed in near-boiling chemistry to save time and money), with a colour balance that varied from reel to reel, and with a load of other defects which would mean that with all other comparable factors being equal, there would be far more detail, dynamic range and colour space in a 4K DCP than in your typical bogstandard print.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-14-2013, 05:40 PM:
 
If you are going to compare an industry that so wanted film gone that it, just about, drug the prints through mud before delivering them to the theatres to a DCP that hasn't been compressed...well, then yeah but that is a bullshit comparison. Heck, the 35mm print (not supposed to be in this discussion anyway due to the forum we are in) is derived off of a 2K DI not for quality sake but ease...the studios really couldn't care about the 35mm film prints in the end...I think everyone gets that. But note, there was no intrinsic reason it HAD to be that way...the industry used to crank out pretty darn good prints. The quality degrade was one of choice, not requirement.

What I was comparing was that 4K is in no way a substitute for 15/70 and to drive the point home...4K is only the resolution of 35mm 1.85 and is therefore clearly NOT 15/70 in quality (by most any measure). Color, contrast ratio...etc. again remain with the 15/70 system. Last I checked, nobody was really complaining about image movement in 15/70 either.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-16-2013, 06:29 AM:
 
I think the answer to this question actually belongs to the film distributors, for some 15/70mm has already ended but most are still willing and promising to supply prints into the future.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 06-20-2013, 03:17 PM:
 
It will still be around by the end of the year, Hobbit 2 is getting a 15/70 release and the third part is also getting one in June. I personally don't think it will go much past Christmas of '14. Which isn't good for myself and a few other posters here.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 06-20-2013, 10:14 PM:
 

quote: Kurt Zupin

---

and the third part is also getting one in June.

---

quote: Geoff Jones

---

The Hobbit: Episode III got pushed to December 2014. That gives them more time to add more minutes and extra frames per second.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

From what I have heard, just 15 70mm IMAX prints have been made for Catching Fire. I am not sure about Sydney IMAX, but they may be running it in 2K digital.

---

quote: Jock Blakley

---

Melbourne has CATCHING FIRE in 15/70 too.

They state on their website that the 15/70 capability will be removed in "late 2014" to facilitate the conversion to laser.

(Ironically this is stated in the paragraph immediately after they profess their commitment to continuing to show 15/70).

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

With the laser projection I'm dissapointed that IMAX didn't decide to do a precision aligned 4 projector system to make 8K instead of the overlapped 2 projector 4K.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

With the laser projection I'm dissapointed that IMAX didn't decide to do a precision aligned 4 projector system to make 8K instead of the overlapped 2 projector 4K. 8K would probably be a true 15/70 replacement and it would at least have IMAX providing a markedly better image than a run of the mill theatre.

---

quote: Jeffry L. Johnson

---

Last I read in LF Examiner, IMAX 4k projectors with laser illumination for dome screen have a projected commercial rollout in the second half of 2015. Flat screens in second half of 2014.

---

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Catching Fire and Hobbit 3 will get prints.

---

Really? That would be nice. Here's hoping you're right on target with this news.
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-03-2014, 11:25 AM:
 

quote:

---

Really? That would be nice. Here's hoping you're right on target with this news. [beer]

---

quote: Dick Vaughan

---

For DMR prints there is usually a minimum guarantee that the theatre has to agree to cover print costs . For a 3D 2hr 40 minute film this can be in the region of $60-80K US.

---

quote: Cameron Glendinning

---

The DMR prints for Sydney IMAX, ie Hobbit 2 or Catching Fire were paid for by the local distributors. The film prints do seem to make more money than the digital releases and some distributors are willing to pay to make more money.

---

Bigger movies should make more money regardless of film vs digital debate, Gravity grossed $100 million from IMAX alone and Gravity was all digital.

I do agree that the more knowledgeable fans will turn out for film if there is the option, but generally IMAX on film is usually a big tentpole type production.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-12-2014, 09:40 AM:
 
a 40min IMAX print runs around $30K so i question a feature for less price and there is guarentees required on them even for commercial theatres that are charged against revenue
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-12-2014, 10:40 AM:
 
Gord, IMAX lists right on their website for anyone to view, they state an IMAX DMR print is around $20K for 2D and $45K for 3D. They also explain how converting to digital will result in a saving to the studio, and not the chain for a DMR print.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-12-2014, 11:48 AM:
 
And we all know that if something is on the Internet it most definitely and certainly is positively true. Especially on a CORPORATE website.
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-12-2014, 12:00 PM:
 
Mike, for a public company, intentionally lying on a financial report would be illegal now wouldn't it?

It has has also been confirmed in many interviews with IMAX personal that the cost is what they are saying.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-12-2014, 01:42 PM:
 
I never said they were lying or not lying, I just said you can't always trust what you see on the internet. Things have a way of not getting updated, or there are typos, or mistakes or ...yes, lies sometimes.

I still have a copy of a Boxoffice magazine in which Disney said they would "never, ever" release their classic animated movies on video. So you can't always believe what a company says because they can turn on a dime depending on what the circumstances are.

I'm not saying Imax is a bunch of liars (even though they are, with that whole fake-Imax thing they have going on). I just think if I was interested in a public company's financial situation I'd look further than their own published reports, is all.
 

---

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-12-2014, 01:57 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I never said they were lying or not lying, I just said you can't always trust what you see on the internet. Things have a way of not getting updated, or there are typos, or mistakes or ...yes, lies sometimes.

---