Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Whitaker Center in Harrisburg PA ordered to pay IMAX $366K

This is topic Whitaker Center in Harrisburg PA ordered to pay IMAX $366K 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=000274

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 02-14-2016, 09:29 PM:

Looks like someone may end up losing their job ......

By Matt Miller | mmiller@pennlive.com
on February 10, 2016 at 10:30 AM

A federal judge has ordered the operator of the The Whitaker Center for Science and the Arts to pay IMAX Corp. $365,906 in a breach of contract dispute.

U.S. Middle District Senior Judge Sylvia H. Rambo issued that ruling this week, a month after determining that officials of the Whitaker, a cultural fixture of downtown Harrisburg, had reneged on its long-term lease of IMAX movie projection equipment.

The decision U.S. Middle District Senior Judge Sylvia H. Rambo issued this week puts the downtown Harrisburg facility on the hook for defaulting on a multi-year lease for its former IMAX movie projection system.

Canada-based IMAX initially sought $376,000 in damages from the center's operator, The Capital Center for the Arts, Science and Education Inc. The amount Rambo sanctioned resulted from a stipulation by the parties.

The legal battle erupted last year when IMAX sued the center for breaching an equipment lease that wasn't set to expire until 2019. The Whitaker began renting IMAX equipment in 1998, but in 2014 removed that gear.

Whitaker officials claimed the IMAX system lacked the ability to properly show Hollywood movies. In a failed bid to counter the IMAX suit, center officials claimed IMAX had misled them regarding the system's capabilities when they renewed the lease in 2004.

The center now uses a digital projection system that was installed during a $1 million facilities upgrade.

Whitaker Ordered to Pay IMAX $366K

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-15-2016, 12:57 PM:

ah the Whitaker Center - did a day trip up there from the DC area to see 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' in 15/70 IMAX - great presentation by the way.

so, let me get this straight - they ditched the 15/70 system, changed over to IMAX-Digital, and THEN decided to complain because they thought it looked like crud ... well duh ...

so what's the new system - if it's 2K - I have to laugh.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 02-15-2016, 01:56 PM:

Sounds to me like they ditched the 15/70 and installed another vendor's digital system. If they had installed IMAX digital I don't see how there could be a judgement against the theater. Now, if they had done the latter and then replaced it with another digital system...Sucks to be you.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 02-15-2016, 02:57 PM:

Whitaker installed a competing vendor's (non IMAX) digital projection system. I believe the system installed came from D3D. D3D System

As I understand it, the fight boiled down to IMAX wanting the Whitaker Center to run certain Hollywood films. Those Hollywood films would have required programming exclusivity - the scheduling of those Hollywood films thus would have prevented Whitaker from running the many educational short films which it runs for school field trips during the day. The local school districts are the bread and butter which keep Whitaker alive.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-15-2016, 04:11 PM:

^ oh, so THEY are the one's that revamped the once IMAX screen over in Davenport Iowa.

Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-20-2016, 11:54 AM:

Not sure how even a technically-ignorant judge could see that a 12,000 line film system and sub-4,000 line digital system are even in the same league.

LieMax!

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 02-21-2016, 02:13 PM:

Format: 70 mm / 15 perf IMAX
Film Dimensions:
H (mm): 69.6
V (mm): 48.5
Area (mm^2): 3376
Film Negative Pixels (a):
H: 11136
V: 7760
Total Pixels (HxV): 86.4 M
Viewable Pixels (b):
H: 5568
V: 3880
Total Pixels (HxV): 21.6 M
Field/Frame (rate/sec): 24
Bandwidth (Mbytes/sec)(c): 1555

Notes:
a) assuming 80 lp/mm resolvable information on film negative;
b) assuming 40 lp/mm resolvable information on screen;
c) bandwidth = (total viewable pixels x frame rate x 24 colour bits/pixel) / 8 bits/byte

Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-21-2016, 02:20 PM:

Thank you for the information, Jeffry.

That looks like 1/4 the resolution with LieMax as with IMAX?

And IMAX is 12K?

Am I reading that right?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-22-2016, 06:05 AM:

80 lp/mm is on the low side to start with. NTAV used to make their own 35PA film NT-Target and it had higher resolution targets. I had no problem on the projection side of things getting above 100 lp/mm...particularly in the center. Naturally, there are many factors in play here...including that target film is B&W camera original, not duplicated color stock. That said, until the Hateful Eight target, 70PA was duplicated film (and it showed when one looked at the resolution patches).

Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-22-2016, 09:34 AM:

Well, if you really want to get technical, you have to consider that line pairs per millimeter are a function of the CONTRAST OF THE SUBJECT, as well.

Unless you are shooting black and white striped charts for your whole movie, regardless of whether it's a chip or silver suspended on a strip of plastic in jello, you're getting resolution that is significantly less than the ideals.

Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-22-2016, 04:37 PM:

Jeff, sorry I misread your post. If you are saying only 25% of that makes it to the screen, that would apply just as much to 4K, 35mm, 2K, 16mm, VHS, whatever, too wouldn't it?

I've heard you lose 50% whenever you go through a lens, but 75?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-22-2016, 08:54 PM:

I have replaced a couple Imax's and one Iwerks system in past years. I can assure you that even if they pay the 366 grand they will come out way way ahead on operating expenses over a five year equipment life span period. Overhead costs to run a dual 15/70 booth can easily exceed 20 grand a month with labor and go as high as 35 grand a month if a site is running dual 15K lamps. This is not counting if you have to buy prints and if you are down and lose screen time, plus the per seat percentage you pay just to Imax! The math is pretty easy to calculate... Stacked Christies work great! Operational costs are abut 1/5th of what any of the 15/70 film systems are.

Mark

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-22-2016, 11:50 PM:

quote: Jonathan M. Crist
As I understand it, the fight boiled down to IMAX wanting the Whitaker Center to run certain Hollywood films. Those Hollywood films would have required programming exclusivity - the scheduling of those Hollywood films thus would have prevented Whitaker from running the many educational short films which it runs for school field trips during the day. The local school districts are the bread and butter which keep Whitaker alive.

That doesn't sound like precisely it. From the article:

quote: article, Leo's emphasis
Whitaker officials claimed the IMAX system lacked the ability to properly show Hollywood movies. In a failed bid to counter the IMAX suit, center officials claimed IMAX had misled them regarding the system's capabilities when they renewed the lease in 2004.

Maybe the issue is that as large format converted to digital, the titles they wanted to show stopped being available in 15/70 film prints, and therefore Whitaker is arguing that a leasing contract signed in the belief that they would be throughout the contract term became unenforceable as the equipment became essentially obsolete before that term was up?

Slighly OT, but a film industry court case being presided over by a judge called Rambo gave me a giggle.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-22-2016, 11:59 PM:

I've pulled a dual Christie IMAX system with an unmasked and curved silver screen and replaced it with a flat white screen and a single Christie 2230 with anamorphic.

It was no contest. My single Christie install's quality was a no contest winner as comparing against the IMAX image. Of course IMAX got all butthurt and sued (because that's what they do), but in the end Mark is correct...the financial hit IMAX does to their clients is in no way worth it.

Plus the sound was vastly improved too after removing their system and installing QSC.

Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-24-2016, 11:01 AM:

Isn't that simple math? Assuming parity elsewhere, 2x2K projectors is half the resolution of 4K. That's assuming the same aspect and 2,048 lines and 4,096 lines, respectively.

4K is 4x the resolution of 2K, as we are talking about an area.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-24-2016, 04:01 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
Maybe the issue is that as large format converted to digital, the titles they wanted to show stopped being available in 15/70 film prints, and therefore Whitaker is arguing that a leasing contract signed in the belief that they would be throughout the contract term became unenforceable as the equipment became essentially obsolete before that term was up?

I think this is exactly the issue at hand. There were quite some 15/70 releases of Hollywood blockbusters up until they started with their IMAX digital LPF concept. So, IMAX probably proposed to "upgrade" to their digital system, but since this upgrade costs serious money, they wanted more commitments, as in, more kickback yielding Hollywood productions being shown, which didn't fit into their daily operations.

quote: Ari Leedsw
Isn't that simple math? Assuming parity elsewhere, 2x2K projectors is half the resolution of 4K. That's assuming the same aspect and 2,048 lines and 4,096 lines, respectively.

The IMAX Digital (Xenon) system overlays two images over each other, it's adding brightness and not really any resolution. Also, the Christie 2230 is a 2K system, not a 4K system.

Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-24-2016, 05:39 PM:

LOL! It's the SAME 2K file???

I thought it was some sort of marginal increase in resolution, too, two different files.

What a joke.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 02-24-2016, 06:25 PM:

quote: Ari Leedsw
Isn't that simple math? Assuming parity elsewhere, 2x2K projectors is half the resolution of 4K. That's assuming the same aspect and 2,048 lines and 4,096 lines, respectively.

2x2k projectors won't be half the resolution of 1 4k unless you were using some kind of anamorphic to run the two images side by side or one above the other.

If the 2, 2k projectors are just overlapped (which is what IMAX an all others I know of do), you are still getting 2k resolution (1/4 4k resolution as you correctly state).

Posted by Ari Leedsw (Member # 9336) on 02-24-2016, 06:43 PM:

I wasn't thinking an anamorphic, I was thinking some sort of offset with two different files, so two slightly different 2K images projected over top of one another for increased spatial resolution.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-25-2016, 03:49 PM:

There have been many discussions about how the IMAX Digital system works. The short answer is: You're not supposed to know, it's their secret sauce, their black box. What we do know is that their DCPs differ from the "mainstream" DCPs, but we also know that most of the content is just 2K in resolution.
The IMAX Digital Xenon system is a different setup than the IMAX laser setup. Whereas the Xenon system uses a mix of 2K and 4K projectors, the input is always 2K. The laser system s is a full 4K system.

In 2D mode, one of the images seems to be out of focus, while the other one seems to be clearly in focus, showing a distinctive pixel grid.

So, the trick here doesn't seem to be to get any extra resolution by projecting two overlapping pictures, which would be close to impossible, the aim is to increase brightness, contrast and hide the underlying pixel grid.

In 3D mode, both projectors seem to shift slightly out of focus, but you will notice the pixel grid better while in 3D mode.
How big the pixels actually are on an oversized IMAX Digital screen is clearly visible if you're watching a show with subtitles. For whatever reason, the anti-aliasing of their subtitle engine seems to be broken, often resulting in very sharp and ugly edges.

Please notice that some of the above is speculative and has been derived from the limited tests I could do on their Digital Xenon system. Maybe the system was faulty and this lead to the wrong conclusions.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 03-17-2016, 08:21 PM:

so I gather even finding out IMAX 'laser's DCP are also a mystery ... why Warner's is releasing the upcoming Batman vs. Superman in only 2K (most likely the co-release of the 3D version) - is bizarre. Is the IMAX laser version of that 4K?

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 03-21-2016, 11:51 AM:

interestingly I just got word from the Smithsonian that the IMAX-laser DCP's "are" 4K for 'Batman vs. Superman' - as it should be

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-21-2016, 01:30 PM:

I would have expected that the 2D system shifts the pixel grid by 1/2 pixel both horizontally and vertically, thus concealing the grid. What they do in their black box and with different DCP data I do not know. 3D would just be 2 projector 3D that anyone presumably can do.

As for the prior discussion of film resolution, you should take any discussion of pixel count with a grain (ahem) of salt. As has been said, there is no particular number. It's a graph called a modulation transfer function and it relates resolution (in line pairs, not pixels) to contrast. The simplest explanation is this: You look at test film under a microscope and try to distinguish alternating black and clear line pairs. As they get finer and finer they disappear into the grain. Rather than one person saying it goes this far and another person saying well, I think I can still distinguish them at this higher level, it's presented as a graph, line pairs vs. contrast levels.

Called a function because it's a relation between two things. The negative has an MTF, the positive has one, the printing method gets involved as do lenses. With film you can do it per linear distance across the film or for the image as a whole.

Bottom line is that you have an image that is the result of a cascading chain of MTF's for the film stocks, camera and projection lenses, printing processes and on and on resulting in what you see on the screen.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 03-28-2016, 05:13 PM:

Jonathan - what I heard is that IMAX laser DCPs (features) are all 4k, that is, IMAX own mastering uprezzes everything to 4k, no matter what the source format/resolution was.
Some call it uprezz, some call it DMR - whatever...

On the laser shows I saw, there was huge differences in image quality between different trailers, IMAX brand clips, and the main feature. Of course, the screen size/viewing angle alone will make differences between footage much more obvious than on standard size screens.

- Carsten

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-28-2016, 05:44 PM:

quote: Steve Kraus
I would have expected that the 2D system shifts the pixel grid by 1/2 pixel both horizontally and vertically, thus concealing the grid. What they do in their black box and with different DCP data I do not know. 3D would just be 2 projector 3D that anyone presumably can do.

The black box has two Nvidia GPU cards in them. They use them for real-time image manipulation.

Shifting the grid half a pixel horizontally and vertically is hard to do. The projectors are side-by-side and housed in bulky enclosures. With the lens openings this far apart, you'll have noticeable different geometries on screen. Some of which can be slightly corrected using lens shifting, but not all of them can.

The Christie Duo system offers a mirror-based setup that puts both lenses much closer together, which achieves a better on-screen convergence.

You could try to digitally deform both images to perfectly match over each other and it will probably work to a certain extend. But, you will lose a lot of image quality by doing this. Even worse, you might introduce some new and disturbing digital artifacts.

So, what would be the best solution? You leave one image mostly as it was, at least you're not going to move around pixels in this one as to not lose any resolution. That's your "sharp image".

Now, you've got this other projector at you disposal. On this, you're going to project an image which is slightly blurred. Since it will be already slightly blurred, if you need to perform some manipulations to fit it onto the other image, you're going to do it on this one. This image will be your "soft" image, which will primarily function as contrast enhancement for the sharp image. It will not only improve the contrast of the image, but it will also help to get rid of the visible pixel grid a great deal.

Please notice: I'm pretty sure this is the essential part of the so called Digital (Xenon) IMAX Image Enhancement magic. They will not acknowledge this, neither can I acknowledge anything. I'm probably talking out of one of my bodily openings, I let you decide if it's the correct one. They might use actual fairy dust or Horn shavings, from Unicorns, imported from Alpha Centauri.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 02-20-2019, 06:25 PM:

It has been 1059 days since the last post.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-20-2019, 06:25 PM:

Didn't Cinemiracle use mirrors in a way to get large physical projector lenses to project nearly out of the same plane, i.e., using first surface mirrors? If you point two projectors at each other, lens-to-lens, then with first surface mirrors, re-aim the image out the center onto the screen, that would give you images that were geometrically very well aligned not needing severe alignment manipulation. With Cinemiracle (a direct competitor to Cinerama) the aim (npi) was to be able to get the three projectors into a single booth rather than needing to build three separate booths with two of them in the far corners of the theatre. Seemed like a good idea but only a single film was made in the process -- WINDJAMMER -- then Cinerama stamped them out like a bug.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 02-20-2019, 09:51 PM:

The Christie Duo dual-stack setup allows you to bring the output of two projectors close together by using a setup including mirrors. This allows for a minimum of distortion. The remaining distortion will be adjusted by digital image manipulation, something we can do nowadays and was impossible in the age of film.

Nowadays we've got the technology to do 16K or 32K by edge-blending a giant stack of projectors together. In my opinion, that's what IMAX should be, not the crappy 2K/4K setup Xenon/Laser it is nowadays, showing movies stretched to infinity on mediocre to giant screens.