Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: TRON: LEGACY in IMAX3D/LIEMAX/15.70mm/RealD/UltraAVX Back2back2back2backt2back

This is topic TRON: LEGACY in IMAX3D/LIEMAX/15.70mm/RealD/UltraAVX Back2back2back2backt2back in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=000714

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-10-2011, 11:48 PM:

All rights folks, I had a oppotunity to visit and watch a number of movies this weekend at three different theatres thanks for friends who work in the exhibition industry. It also just so happened that these theatres were all playing TRON LEGACY in IMAX3D/IMAX15.70/LIEMAX/RealD and UltraAVX. I was able to watch a good 45 is some of the presentations for the IMAX and a small amount in the non-IMAX. Throw in a 35mm presentation of The Kings Speech and a DLP presentation of Blue Valentine all within a 48hr period and you have results that might surprise you.

Let me just say, fresh of the heals of watching two 70mm films presented in 70mm, IMAX Digital/15.70 is best method to watch TRON LEGACY in 3D and the presentation is FAR superior than 35mm/or DLP.

My results are from what I saw and where I would pay going forward.

First up: IMAX 3D in Mississauga. I was not able to tell if the first screen that was playing was IMAX 15/70 or Digital. The theatre did have two side by side projectors showing the picture. Large screen but not enormous. I would have to say, at least 3.5 stories tall.

Right away I noticed how much more calibrated the picture looked. The sound was also incredible.

The thing that I noticed the most was that this theatre was clearly built for IMAX. There were only 8-10 rows of seats (250apx) total. All curved and pointed directly towards the center of the screen. Seats and theatre felt like it was shaking.

Second Up: IMAX at AMC retrofit. Just like the IMAX in Mississauga, the picture looked solid and consistent. Was not dark at all. Theater and seats felt like there were shaking. Sounded very good. Screen was large but not huge.

And this is where the LIEMAX comes in. The theatre was clearly built for standard 35mm. Nothing like the first theatre or the 15.70 I was at. I personaly like sitting close (first 5 rows) and I had no problem with the smaller screen size but I can see why people would assume that this is not a real IMAX.

Third Up: IMAX 15/70 in Toronto. The screen was HUGE. I am talking massive compared to the other two. From what I understand, the IMAX screen at Scotiabank is 62.5 feet by 90 feet. I did noticed that 2D parts were not really 2D and you had to keep the glasses on. Sound was very good but not as good IMO as the Digital Presentation. (I have no idea if the sound is same or what not)

While the screen was massive and resolution good, it did not make a difference that is was film. If any of the screens were to be fatigue, it would be the one at Scotiabank.

The conclusion I found was that all three IMAX presentations were very consisent. It just looked better than standard DLP or 35mm. Also, the brightness levels were much higher than RealD and it seemed there was a lot more depth in the 3D images.

I also really liked how the screen opened up in certain sceens to become full.

Real D of TRON LEGACY in the same complex as IMAX was terrible, so was the presentation of AVX which is just too dark on these screens.

As for all the LIEMAX claims, I am not sure if this is true as it appeared that the screen size and throw did not matter. I did notice that a lot of people were at the back of the busy theatre. I like to sit at the front and there was nobody around me. I don't sit far from the screen so this theatre build would not bother me. I think people would chill out about LIEMAX if the theatres were much smaller while keeping a the same medium/large sized screen.

If I had to pick, all three IMAX presentations were good in my books, all three were much more involving than RealD and the picture looked very good. Sound was outstanding the the experience was better than standard 35mm or RealD. 15/70 would not be enough to sway me one way or the other based on this weekends experience.

I will be sure to watch the next big EVENT movie in IMAX.

I am a fan!

NOTE: I could heard the projector of the 15/70 at the Scotiabank Theatre during the credits when I was hanging out in the back row.

Note, I am sure 15/70 will blow my mind if it was filmed in IMAX and was non 3D.

All of the above comments are not an attack on 15/70/DIGITAL/35MM or anything like that.

Just an FYI, IMAX technicians test IMAX movies in a closed door retro fit theatre in the Oakville area.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-11-2011, 12:49 PM:

[sleep]

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 01-12-2011, 12:02 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
If any of the screens were to be fatigue, it would be the one at Scotiabank.

I am not an Imax expert but it may have been because of the following?

quote: Tom Petrov
I did noticed that 2D parts were not really 2D and you had to keep the glasses on.

since the 2D parts were actually 2D [Smile]

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-12-2011, 07:59 PM:

quote:
since the 2D parts were actually 2D [Smile]

The two parts in a REALD or IMAX Digital were not 2D in the 70/15. They became 2D while wearing the glasses.

Does this makes sense?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-12-2011, 08:05 PM:

I noticed that the 2D scenes were in fact 2D but were not on the same plane as the screen. I don't remember if the image was set further away from the audience or closer to the audience, but it was definitely not the same distance as the screen. And it wasn't off by much. It was kind of like it was five feet in front of (or behind, don't remember which) the screen. If that makes sense. I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about or not. This was a 15/70 show.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-12-2011, 11:12 PM:

in regards to the switching aspect ratios, it sounds like this decision to go full screen on select scenes was a marketing tool for the IMAX version and not par the director's intent (or even actually filmed that way in the first place). According to the article in American Cinematographer:

"The filmmakers framed for 2.35:1 and 'we protected the top and bottom of the 2.35 frame in order to keep items from breaking the horizontal frame lines' notes (Joseph) Kosinski 'When the brain preceives a depth cue disrupted by those edges,it gends to ruin the illusion'"

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-13-2011, 12:07 AM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
If that makes sense. I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about or not. This was a 15/70 show.

What I mean is this. In a RealD or IMAX 3D Digital cineam, without the glasses on the 2D parts/scenes were perfect 2D

The IMAX 3D 70mm on the other hand had was blurred during the 2D segments which was corrected when putting on the glasses.

quote:
n regards to the switching aspect ratios, it sounds like this decision to go full screen on select scenes was a marketing tool for the IMAX version and not par the director's intent (or even actually filmed that way in the first place). According to the article in American Cinematographer:

These guys claim it was fulled with the extended frame and the picture is not zoomed. TRON/EXTENEDED scenes

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-13-2011, 07:45 AM:

Could be that the projectors are aimed differently or that the IMAX screen is so much larger that the images were separated more in IMAX than in DLP. That would cause both what you saw and what I saw.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 01-13-2011, 11:52 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
What I mean is this. In a RealD or IMAX 3D Digital cineam, without the glasses on the 2D parts/scenes were perfect 2D

The IMAX 3D 70mm on the other hand had was blurred during the 2D segments which was corrected when putting on the glasses.

What I meant is that maybe the IMAX 70mm setup was misaligned. If the scene were supposed to be 2D and you saw them "3D", maybe what you saw was just a bad-aligned setup. That would explain the fatigue as well.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-13-2011, 12:24 PM:

Good detailed, overall evaluation, Tom.

quote: Tom Petrov
The conclusion I found was that all three IMAX presentations were very consisent. It just looked better than standard DLP or 35mm. Also, the brightness levels were much higher than RealD and it seemed there was a lot more depth in the 3D images.

And I came to similar conclusions re: LIEMAX; albeit LIEMAX is no longer film-based in most venues, it really is the way to see high-end presentation today and it beats out other formats every time, be it 3D or 2D. I know that like others, I have ranted against LIMAX vis-à-vis the loss of the 15/70 IMAX film system as a format, but putting that aside -- and you must because it is not going to change given the economics, except perhaps for the few huge vehicles like DARK KNIGHT -- IMAX Digital (dual projector) is really the best way to see a movie nowadays.

I liken IMAX-D to what 70mm film theatre operations were during the hayday of 70mm. If you wanted the best presentation experience, you sought out a 70mm theatre. I think IMAX-Digital theatre are the new 70mm venues of the 60s, 70s & 80s. I am not talking about the single issue of image resolution, size and brightness because 5/70 still beats everything hands down, but the over-all theatre operation, including picture, sound and especially theatre creature comforts. The present-day IMAX-D cinemas are run like each one is a "flagship" level theatre, at least of the ones I have gone to, that has been the case.

According to the CEO, IMAX is actively working toward dual 4K projection and even higher rez, which is good news because it means as good as they are able to get their picture now, which as Tom notes and I agree, is VERY good, it will only get better. So bottom line is, I don't mind paying for the higher-end quality presentation....well, yah I mind, but if this is the way it's structured today, then I'd rather pay for better rather than suffer mediocre to save a few dollars -- I just won't by as much of their over-priced grease-ladened junk food.

I don't think it was wise for the industry to make customers pay extra for a level of presentation that it should be acheiving for every screening in every theatre, but it is what it is, so if I have to pay for premium, I will, just like I sought out 70mm theatres back in the day -- I will just choose more selectively the films that I actually think are worthy of me schleping out to see them in a theatre at all. No doubt there will be fewer of those than in the past.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-13-2011, 11:33 PM:

considering that the IMAX Digital projector are Texas Instrument DLP systems, it'd make sense for the IMAX-Digital dual projector systems to be upgraded to 4K playback, since Christie and Barco systems are being released as such.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-14-2011, 01:52 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
I know that like others, I have ranted against LIMAX vis-à-vis the loss of the 15/70 IMAX film system as a format, but putting that aside -- and you must because it is not going to change given the economics, except perhaps for the few huge vehicles like DARK KNIGHT -- IMAX Digital (dual projector) is really the best way to see a movie nowadays.

Hey Frank, thanks for posting and responding. I agree that IMAX Digital/15.70 is the best way to see a movie nowadays. While the screen at the IMAX in Toronto was huge, the screen size really did not do it for me, it was in a way too big.

What I did noticed from each of the three theatres I visited was that the screen being closer, the colour/contrast etc, sound and overall theatre design (except the AMC) is what made the difference. The consistency of the IMAX image from each theatre was pretty much the same.

I saw a number of digital, 35mm, and RealD UltraAVX presentation to compare against the IMAX 3D and nothing came as close.

Even tonight, I saw How Do You Know in 35mm on a 14 foot screen which blew away The King's Speech from the other night that looked horrible on the a 20 footer show in 35mm.

quote: Frank Angel
I think IMAX-Digital theatre are the new 70mm venues of the 60s, 70s & 80s.

I kind of disagree, I look at it more as kind of like a more modern THX Home Video type thing only for the theatres. I mean, the film is perhaps not recorded in 70mm but they have done things to the sound, image, grain that have enhanced the movie presentation so that it is of high quality. Then inside the theatre, the screen is closer, sound is a bit better etc. 3D is brigher etc.

quote: Frank Angel
. So bottom line is, I don't mind paying for the higher-end quality presentation.

Me too! and it looks like the public loves the IMAX Experience.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Could be that the projectors are aimed differently or that the IMAX screen is so much larger that the images were separated more in IMAX than in DLP. That would cause both what you saw and what I saw.

I guess its possible. Or perhaps the Digital is going IN/OUT of 2D/3D while the film format can't.

I mean, has there ever been a 2D IMAX film showing on 70/15 with dual projectors?

quote:
he present-day IMAX-D cinemas are run like each one is a "flagship" level theatre,

I would have to agree, the Digital cinemas are also monitored by IMAX Corp in real-time which is a benefit for us moviegoers

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 01-14-2011, 12:29 PM:

It's good to see that people are appreciating the IMAX digital format, and what IMAX are trying to do regarding standards across the whole visit to the film.

We've had a good launch to our IMAX digital and it blows away anything we had before. Our team have also got behind it which is great. The way IMAX presented the digital format and experience to us as Managers was very impressive and won me over, despite this website giving me a healthy dose of scepticism!

I still think there is a place for 15/70 IMAX, but for a Cinema like ours the digital is a brilliant addition.

Tom I agree with what you say about Tron, posted elsewhere that I'd seen it across different formats and IMAX Digital 3D was a lot better. I sat through the tech rehearsal of Green Hornet yesterday so will try and see some of it in RealD to compare as well.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-14-2011, 01:00 PM:

Sorry, when I see IMAX, I want to see a GIANT screen in front of me. That's the way it's been for like 387 years. Now all of a sudden a screen the size of the front of a standard multi-plex theater is ok. Sorry, that's not IMAX. Is it cool? Maybe, but they should call it something else.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-14-2011, 01:05 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Sorry, when I see IMAX, I want to see a GIANT screen in front of me

And how long have they been showing "Hollywood" fare, feature length films on these giant screens you are talking about?

I saw "How Do You Know" in 35mm on a small 14 foot screen, I also saw "The Fighter" on a 45 footer at AMC. Should the smaller 14 footer be called "35mm lite"?

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-14-2011, 01:17 PM:

Imax tried to conquer the world with 15/70 and could not quite make it happen after 40 years but now via Digital projection they will help destroy 35mm film and their own 15/70 legacy!

I know its better than regular crap DC but i fail to care one little bit! When the smoke clears on this digital conversion crap and film is but a Fight Club memory [Roll Eyes]

i will have a home theater set up with 35mm,16mm and dlp which will smoke all the silly multiplexes!

Yay me

[Smile]

Sorry just ranting [Frown]

Posted by Tom Mundell (Member # 4555) on 01-14-2011, 02:28 PM:

Regardless of what they call these new Imax rooms, I still dislike them after giving them a try at two different locations. And for $17.50 per ticket they really fail to deliver! The lack of masking is a huge drawback and this reason alone is enough to keep me from going back. Was really annoying that one room went from a common height screen with proper masking to a common width screen with no masking! Not only is this a big downgrade, but for an apparently "premium" experience with a $7.50 surcharge seems unacceptable. Their sound systems are pretty good, but aren't terribly impressive either; I can think of a number of standard multiplex rooms that I think have better sound. Sound at one location really had little deep bass, was very loud and boomy - not an improvement over every other room in the complex. The second I've been to was much better, less echo and deeper bass. At both I really dislike the use of just two surround speakers, to me using the typical array of speakers sounds much better especially when you aren't seated in the middle of the room. With 7.1 sound available in my home, a typical 5.1 setup in large theaters is starting to look disappointing. For such a large price increase I wasn't exactly blown away by the sound!

3D quality certainly varies by location too, at one the 3D was far worse than any RealD screen I've seen with lots of ghosting and glare on the glasses. The other blew any RealD I've seen out of the water; much brighter, even picture and excellent 3D effect. I've no idea why such a difference between the two locations.

quote: Tom Petrov
I saw "How Do You Know" in 35mm on a small 14 foot screen, I also saw "The Fighter" on a 45 footer at AMC. Should the smaller 14 footer be called "35mm lite"?

35mm has never been a brand though, it's the technology. Theaters with the Imax name have always been specific technology using 15/70 film on giant screens and now they're suddenly changing that with no differentiation in the name.

But, since they keep building more of these things, I guess people are paying. I've been wondering if anyone has any records on how attendance in a converted room has been affected over time. Now that I've given it a try, I'm not going back.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-14-2011, 02:32 PM:

quote: Victor Liorentas
Imax tried to conquer the world with 15/70

IMAX tried to conquer documentaries. NOT movies.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 01-14-2011, 05:15 PM:

IMAX with documentries made films that put commercial cinemas cashflow to shame! A film is a film no mater what genra and a paying audience is a paying audience! The interesting aspect to IMAX was that a good production could have a 20 year release and ultimately can create a box office that equals a successful world wide commercial release.

IMAX's move to commercial Hollywood fare is based upon the demand created by the vaste number of people who have visited these traditional Imax venues and wished that they could see a blockbuster on that giant screen! In what was always a vastly better designed auditorium than found in typical cinema complexs.

IMAX have been trying to tap into this audience for well over 10 years and here in Australia you can find many closed (now converted to 35mm) IMAX theatres built in typical commercial cinema zones. Strangely the ones built in typical museums and tourist zones are still doing very well even with the commercial fare.

Here in Sydney Australia the difference in our 2 IMAX screens is very noticable, one is a film based venue with the largest cinema screen in the world, ballpark 90 x 130', the other is a conversion of a Hoyts cinema. They even have larger conventional screened cinemas in their chain!

In the past people here have drawn a link to the first large format process called cinerama a 3x35mm projector process that filled a giant deep curve screen in the 1950's. It started with travelogues and documentries and grew to full feature productions. It was cheapened to a single 5/70mm projector system and promply disappeared.

Without differentation between the different IMAX experience todays more decerning audience will eventually decide/ vote with their dollar. The demand was created over a 30 year period with a solid product. The management over the last 10 years has already burned many who have invested money into IMAX theatres. I know I would not invest my money into IMAX shares with their business plans but I am sure many people are!

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 01-14-2011, 05:56 PM:

I think Mark, Tom and Cameron present valid criticisms, and that there are definitely two very strong sides in this argument. The most important thing for those of us who are pro-IMAX digital is to not try and pretend it is better than 15/70, because it isn't. I am definitely swayed in part because being a manager of any kind of IMAX is something I never thought would happen, and I'm quite happy to get the chance to run one and put that on my CV.

Cameron your post is why I think there is still a place for 15/70 IMAX. However for areas outside major cities and museums the digital format is a great alternative.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 01-14-2011, 07:40 PM:

Since when have documentaries not been movies??.. or entertainment...or feature length? [Confused]

What IMAX did very successfully was to conquer the 'Event' screening, whether it be fictional, factual or a mix of both. They did this with the most unique film-based system yet invented and which has yet to be beaten quality wise - with the eexception of Showscan. This resulted in the IMAX brand that was inexorably linked with a known product- e.g 15/70, mammoth sound and HUGE screens that fill the vertical and horizontal fields of view.

What is IMAX now?

$100 says you wont get the same specifically identifiable product that IMAX used to be...and that brand has been irreparably damaged.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 01-15-2011, 04:07 AM:

If I recall correctly... and I freely admit I could be remembering wrong... IMAX was looking at potential bankruptcy a decade or so ago, before they started doing the DMR conversions of mainstream Hollywood movies. If I am remembering correctly, it would be highly ironic that was killed the format for many of you is what saved it for the last several years before Digital IMAX. But let's face it... money talks, and the cost of creating and shipping one hard drive compared to 40-75 reels of 70mm film is what really killed the format, even as it was saving it.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-15-2011, 10:22 AM:

You are right. I was told that the museums that partnered with IMAX thinking it would be a financial boon for their bottom line, toward mid-90s were seeing red ink all over the place, and they were very unhappy pups. IMAX itself was in dire striates if you read the open minutes of the shareholders meeting where the CEO explained that film IMAX was economically unsustainable. DMR was an attempt to stop the hemoraging, by getting Hollywood features on their screens, but in the end even that was not enough -- it was still film-based and the cost was prohibitive.

If I remember, I too railed against their move to digital, but even I could see that the company simply had to do something or they would be out of business. They are doing what they have to do. And believe me, having been in total awe seeing my first IMAX back in the late 70s at the Cinesphere in Ontario Place, NORTH OF SUPERIOR, it is hard for me to admit that I think IMAX is doing the right thing to remain viable. They may not be the IMAX you and I love, but from what I have seen, their IMAX-D theatres are run on a much higher overall level than your average multiplex. And that is worth quite a bit in my book. The are at the level of what we used to call a flagship theatre and those used to be mostly 70mm houses.

Has the IMAX brand been tarnished -- well to us, sure. But they are not looking back to our generation, but ahead. To the younger general public who have never seen film IMAX, all they will know is that the "IMAX Experience" as they are still branding themselves, now done digitally is still quite a bit better than the regular multiplex "experience." The screen is bigger, it's curved, the image is brighter and if it's 3D it is MUCH brighter. The sound is impressive, the theatre is clean and the seats bigger and more comfortable -- so how have they ruined the IMAX brand if that is what the current crop of moviegoers experience when they go to an IMAX theatre? Nothing. IMAX will still represent a higher quality presentation to Joe Moviegoer than what he gets at other venues. To him, the brand is still synonymous with a quality operation. They have risen from near bankrupcy to a decent place in the mind of the moviegoing public, us not included. To me, that's pretty much what I call pulling victory from the jaws of defeat. [thumbsup]

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-15-2011, 01:18 PM:

Frank- It is nice to see that there are some people on here who can have a decent conversation about IMAX without making lame silly remarks.

quote: Frank Angel
Has the IMAX brand been tarnished -- well to us, sure.

I don't think so. I think it stronger than ever! It is proven that the Digital IMAX is selling, and selling strong.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-15-2011, 08:34 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
And how long have they been showing "Hollywood" fare, feature length films on these giant screens you are talking about?

I saw "How Do You Know" in 35mm on a small 14 foot screen, I also saw "The Fighter" on a 45 footer at AMC. Should the smaller 14 footer be called "35mm lite"?

That's just about the dumbest analogy you could have chosen. Had these digital fake IMAX theaters installed 15/70 projectors to show on their screens, you might have something. But they are showing a completely different product with no film at all that has an end result which is so demonstrably inferior to their established and well known brand on so many levels it's ridiculous. Is it a legitimate product that's cool? Maybe. But should be called something else.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-15-2011, 11:33 PM:

Add to this that mainstream Hollywood is going nuts over digital technology, which honestly, doesn't translate well to 15/70: video and 2K just doesn't cut it when you get THAT big. Thank God for Christopher Nolan.

Also, why should I pay a major surcharge to see IMAX Digital when a room with a competent tech and projectionist + 35mm can achieve better results? I know I enjoyed Inception much more in 35mm than in IMAX Digital, as did my wallet.

Why can't we just get well thought out and designed rooms with the technology to match it? There's also no reason why filmmakers should even be considering anything below 4K for shooting or DI: it's just downright ridiculous, and something we'll all laugh about in 20 years when it looks like garbage.

AJG

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 01-16-2011, 09:42 AM:

It is curious that few people have made the analogy with Cinerama. As you all know, at the beginning Cinerama, like IMAX, was a filming and projecting system. By the end Cinerama was nothing, they blew-up even 35mm onto single strip 70mm. They did not have a unique product and they vanished.

IMAX digital means nothing to me since it is not a filming process and so there is no control as to the quality of the product shown. There is only control as to the way it is shown. Since it uses digital 2K systems to screen and have no control as to how the picture has been filmed, there are already competitors appearing and so they won’t have a unique product, which is good for exhibitors since there will be competition and digital presentations will hopefully improve, although I prefer film.

I am surprised also that no one is mentioning aspect ratios and the correct ways of seeing films shot in different aspect ratios. A proper widescreen film should not be seen on the traditional IMAX screen, blown-up and letterboxed. Audiences are too close to the screen to enjoy widescreen photography devised for traditional cinemas. Anything with fast editing should not be seen on the IMAX big screen either, it causes headache and it is very unpleasant.

Yet, films like The Dark Knight Rises can ONLY be seen in a traditional IMAX cinema and I think this is the magic of it. If the rumours are true, The Dark Knight Rises will have many more sequences in real IMAX than The Dark Knight had. If they are as impressive as the ones for The Dark Knight, the film, as it is conceived cannot be seen any other way. There is nothing even remotely close nowadays to IMAX (proper IMAX filmed and screened), the rest pales by comparison. Whoever goes to see this film in an IMAX digital theatre will be wasting their money, yet both presentations (digital and film) will be advertised as being in IMAX, which to me is highly deceiving to the consumer. This is the type of cinematic attraction that will make travelling to the closest (real, true, proper) IMAX theatre worthwhile.

I think that instead of digital IMAX theatres they should be building more IMAX real theatres and Hollywood investing in more 15/70 IMAX commercial films. Imagine people like James Cameron or Ridley Scott filming with IMAX cameras. Those films would have to be experienced and this is something digital downloads or TV screenings would not provide.

Also, it would be worth getting back systems like UltraPanavision for traditional big screens and make use of the very wide experience on a curved screen, that would be something difficult to replicate as well. IMAX digital, no masking, no five speakers behind the screen, no consistency as to the product shown in terms of image acquisition, … how can this be good?

Posted by Frederick Lanoy (Member # 5416) on 01-16-2011, 11:07 AM:

I can understand that IMAX has a digital system for small multiplex screen. Some movies like "The green hornet" don't deserve 70 mm print anyway.

But here, in France, i was truly sad when i learnt that a traditionnal IMAX screen mostly dedicated to DMR pictures was converted in digital. The 70 mm image was really glorious on that giant screen (IMAX scenes of "The dark knight" looked fantastic). Now, the dual 2 K system doesn't give the same result... IMAX should put digital system only on retrofit theater.

Shame to learn that the next Mission : impossible will have some scenes shoot in IMAX 70 mm and know that all IMAX screens in France are now digital. I mean : what's the point shooting in 8 K if no screen can show the full resolution and respect the original aspect ratio (1.44) ?

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-17-2011, 11:18 AM:

The whole problem with this IMAX mess is that they have two very distinct products with a single name. To make it worse, the IMAX executives want to convince the public that the "IMAX Experience" is the same no matter where it is exhibited.

Product "A" is the traditional 15/70 museum-type experience. These are typically short films that can run for months or even years at a time. Most museums do not depend on repeat visitors, so a new audience is available every day.

Commercial cinemas just can not work with this model, and that is why many of the IMAX theatres installed in the late '90's were eventual failures. The current commercial cinema model depends on a near constant turn-over of product. The audience returns regularly and expects to see something new each time.

It is just not economical to produce enough features in 15/70 to fill this demand. The cost of prints is just too high. The solution is digital. Once the digital master is made, copies are quick and cheap. You can send out a new movie every week or two and the audience will be happy.

I think IMAX was correct to introduce product "B", the MPX systems. (Note that IMAX calls its digital system the "IMAX Digital MPX Theatre System.) They had to make some compromises, the most obvious being cutting down the height of the screen. It really didn't make a whole lot of difference, as Hollywood movies are much wider than tall.) By making the system digital, new movies can be moved in on a regular basis. The 2011 release schedule has a new IMAX-enhanced movie about every 2 weeks. There is a gap right now in late summer, but that is likely to be filled in by then.

I love the original IMAX system. That huge picture with the rock solid image and great sound will always be something I seek out whenever possible.

But, I understand why it had to change in the commercial environment. I just wish they had given it a different name, and they would stop lying about all IMAX being the same.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 01-24-2011, 07:08 PM:

There is an interesting artical about 'new' IMAX here:

http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-25-2011, 06:43 AM:

Just rememeber that Mysteries of Egypt and Everest both approx 40min imax films spent almost 6 months in the top 10 of boxoffice grosses in Variety

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-25-2011, 07:16 AM:

Gord- Not sure about you, but I think the era of 15/70 films taking a long while to gross high numbers is done. Do you know if they are changing the screen size with the new digital projector install at the Cinesphere?

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-25-2011, 08:27 AM:

Tom - Do you work?

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-25-2011, 08:37 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
Tom - Do you work?

I have three jobs actually

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-25-2011, 08:43 AM:

I dont know about you either
both films stayed for 6 months in the top box office weekly gross

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-25-2011, 08:47 AM:

Gord- Do you know about screen size at the Cinesphere? Will it be smaller with the new projector?

quote: Gordon McLeod
6 months in the top box office weekly gross

You mean average gross per theatre?

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-28-2011, 11:29 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
I saw "How Do You Know" in 35mm on a small 14 foot screen, I also saw "The Fighter" on a 45 footer at AMC. Should the smaller 14 footer be called "35mm lite"?

If I were to walk into an auditorium and the screen was that small, the room better be sized to match, or I'd be walking out and demanding my money back!

At 14' wide, you'd have to sit no further than 23-35' away before the viewing angle would be way too small.

Was this a screening room of some sort?

I've attended movies with screens as small as 24' with a room that was probably only 28' wide by 60' deep, but that even felt too small for comfort. This was exacerbated by the fact that it was an iPic location where they had large seats and widely spaced rows. The screen was mounted in such a way that one row was too low in respect to the screen, while the next row back was too far away for comfort.

14' is way too close to home theater width for me to pay movie theater prices for. I think there is a market for smaller auditoriums that are better equipped, but that's just too small...

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-28-2011, 01:18 PM:

Scott- The theatre I am referring to is the Upper Canada Place Mall theatre in Burlington Ontario. It was among one of the very first Garth Drabinsky, Cineplex Odeon Cinemas back in the day. The screens and rooms are very small, I mean no bigger than living room at home. All theatres are mono sound but the surround speakers are up on the wall in theatres 1 and 2 for the look (they are not operational)

Here is the seat count:

Cinema 1 88 seats
Cinema 2 98 seats
Cinema 3 72 seats
Cinema 4 55 seats
Cinema 5 55 seats
Cinema 6 55 seats

It should be clear, the movies shown here are show on decades old equipment, complete with mono sound and a nice hissing sound coming from the speaker. The movies are second run features and this is not a state of the art screening room.

This theatre has a loyal following.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 01-28-2011, 03:17 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
Gord- Not sure about you, but I think the era of 15/70 films taking a long while to gross high numbers is done.

Well I'm not Gord but those particular films did not take time to get into the top 10! I personally remember running "Everest" to a over 550 people (full house) every hour on the hour, all weekend for many weeks! Only the first and last sesion per day were not full (weekend sessions), 12 sesions per day. monday to friday school bookings/ nights were also busy. Serious cash flow [Smile]

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-28-2011, 03:29 PM:

Camereon-What I mean, with very few screens showing a 15/70 print, it will take a very long time to gross high numbers.

The averages will be very high for a 15/70 movie showing on so few screens that of course it will stay in the top 10 of average for a long time.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 01-28-2011, 09:03 PM:

Hey Tom

Check out boxoffice mojo 1998

In its year of release Everest was only on 62 large format screens in the US but came in 22 in the yearly total with $87,000,000 in total. Sure Saving Private Ryan was no 1 on 2800 cinema screens made more at $220,000,000.

Yep the b.o per screen average is higher with Everest. The total figure though is impressive and really has alot to do with the number of sesions you can have with a 45 minute film.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-30-2011, 01:34 AM:

quote:
[sleep] [sleep] [sleep] [sleep] [Roll Eyes]

Hey Tony!

Are you stll sleeping?

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-31-2011, 10:16 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
The theatre I am referring to is the Upper Canada Place Mall theatre in Burlington Ontario. It was among one of the very first Garth Drabinsky, Cineplex Odeon Cinemas back in the day. The screens and rooms are very small, I mean no bigger than living room at home. All theatres are mono sound but the surround speakers are up on the wall in theatres 1 and 2 for the look (they are not operational)

Tom,

Perhaps there is something to these theaters that warrant the following you say they have, but I stand by my comment that I'd walk out and demand my money back. I can't remember ever going to a movie theater and seeing a movie on a screen smaller than 20' wide.

Don't get me wrong, I think smaller can be better, but there is a limit. I like the idea of a small sub-100 person room, but the viewing angles must still be decent. How close are the seats to the screen?

It's one thing to show old movies in mono, but even the most talkative of contemporary romantic comedies still puts some effort into a sound mix that can make use of more than one channel of sound. Seeing Casablanca in such an environment may be quaint and appealing in its own right, but if I'm paying money for a movie that has more than one channel of sound, the theater better be delivering it.

Additionally, the tradeoff for the smaller environment would have to then be in the performance of the presentation. Put me in a 88-seat house with good viewing angles, nice apppointments (decent seats, some care taken with the design of the room, curtains would be nice), and excellent picture and sound, and I'll pay $20 per ticket with no hesitation whatsoever.

What you describe wouldn't be worth my time, much less my money. Maybe I'm missing something about what these theaters are offering?

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-31-2011, 11:29 AM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
In its year of release Everest was only on 62 large format screens in the US but came in 22 in the yearly total with $87,000,000 in total.

That appears to be a deceptive claim. The best I can tell, Everest's $87 million gross was achieved over a span of several years. For legacy/historical lists, it is common for a film's total gross to be retroactively assigned to the year of initial release. That is typically what happens with successful films released in the latter months of a given year and films with specialized, longterm distribution/exhibition (such as IMAX or roadshows).

As an example, if you ask me what the top-grossing film of 1984 was, I'd consider it Ghost Busters, and trade reports published in December '84 and January '85 echo this. But if you look at any legacy list, you'll see Beverly Hills Cop in the top spot. (Beverly Hills Cop was released in December '84 and made most of its money during the 1985 calendar year, whereas Ghost Busters was released in June and made 99% of its money during '84.)

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-31-2011, 01:12 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
I can't remember ever going to a movie theater and seeing a movie on a screen smaller than 20' wide.

Come to think of it, the some of the screens might even be under 10 feet in width.

quote: Scott Jentsch
Maybe I'm missing something about what these theaters are offering?

I guess you would have to see it or go to appreciate it. Like I said it was one of the very first Cineplex Odeon Cinemas. It really is a nice intimate environment, tiny lobby, long hallway.

The theatre has a loyal following. The theatre play second run kids and hollywood fare. This is no art house.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-31-2011, 02:08 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
if I'm paying money for a movie that has more than one channel of sound, the theater better be delivering it.

this is true, BUT this has always been the burr under the saddle when it comes to conventional, commercial exhibition. There is a pretty wide range of presentation quality and what passes for the theatrical "norm." SMPTE might have standards; the exhibition industry abides by them quite loosely; what is considered acceptable has a very wide variance.

One's expectation may be of a certain size screen, certain minimal sound system configuration and general over-all presentation values, but the customer pretty much is on his own when he walks into any conventional theatre for the first time. You spend your money on a ticket and you pretty much can find a small 50 seat room or a 300 seat room -- no guarantees....no "ingredience list" posted on the label. You make mental notes as to whether or not that particular venue meets your expectations.

If the presentation is grossly below what Joe Moviegoer expects when he walks into a cinema, then he might be able to demand his money back, but this really gets into a very gray area of subjectivity. Rather than start an altercation with management about the fact that their screen isn't as big as one expected and thus warrants a refund, most people will just cross that theatre off their list and never go back. Although I must say, if I walked into a theatre and found they were playing a current film, no matter second or third of fifth run in mono sound, I damn well would demand my money back.

Point is, there will always be a range of screen sizes and other presentation values that one might expect to find in a conventional movie house. The difference with IMAX, of course, is that the expectation for all who have seen IMAX 15/70 for decades is, de facto, a 6 story plus high screen; the disappointment coming into a theatre that has IMAX on the marquee and finding something radically different than that is the big IMAX mistake. They should have differentiated the two "experiences" and made that difference clear from the get-go.

I don't think there would be nearly the brouhaha if IMAX didn't try to tell the public that a 6 story high screen with an Academy-sh aspect ratio is the same as a conventional size screen with a wide screen ar. You are looking at pokadots and the IMAX CEO is telling you with a straight face that you are looking at stripes. The public gets really pissed when they find out they are the recipient of Orwellian Double-Speak, especially when they are asked to pay extra for it.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-31-2011, 06:09 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
The difference with IMAX, of course, is that the expectation for all who have seen IMAX 15/70 for decades is, de facto, a 6 story plus high screen; the disappointment coming into a theatre that has IMAX on the marquee and finding something radically different than that is the big IMAX mistake.

Disagree here. 15/70 has been showing documentaries not Hollywood films. The IMAX at Scotiabank is a 15/70 and is showing TRON on the traditional sized screen.

quote: Frank Angel
They should have differentiated the two "experiences" and made that difference clear from the get-go.

Technically they do. Every Hollywood film I have seen stated "An IMAX (3D) Experience" whereas traditional IMAX documentaries are simply called IMAX then the title.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 02-01-2011, 03:52 PM:

There is no differentiation between a mainstream movie playing in an IMAX Dome (Omnimax) screen, a 15/70 IMAX film screen, and an MPX IMAX Digital screen.

Not many mainstream movies play on IMAX Domes, but it happens. IMAX still does not differentiate between the large IMAX screens and the MPX conversions. At this point, one should assume that an "IMAX Experience" movie will be done with IMAX Digital, but that's not a universal fact yet.

With IMAX, you never know what you're going to get unless you are intimately familiar with the venue in advance. Which brings me to the following:

quote: Frank Angel
One's expectation may be of a certain size screen, certain minimal sound system configuration and general over-all presentation values, but the customer pretty much is on his own when he walks into any conventional theatre for the first time. You spend your money on a ticket and you pretty much can find a small 50 seat room or a 300 seat room -- no guarantees....no "ingredience list" posted on the label. You make mental notes as to whether or not that particular venue meets your expectations.

I agree completely, and it's the reason that I created the Theater Comments feature on The BigScreen Cinema Guide. It gives people a chance to share information about what they're going to get when they go to a particular theater.

We've gotten a good response from those who have left comments. In the past year and a half, I've only had to trash about a dozen comments that were useless or duplications.

I've been contributing as much information as I can. Here are two examples:
- Comments for Marcus Ridge Cinema - New Berlin, WI
- Comments for Showtime Cinema - Franklin, WI

The value of such a feature is completely dependent upon the comments that people submit, though. I welcome the participation of those that are here, as valuable comments set a good example and provide meaningful information to people attending those theaters.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-02-2011, 02:08 AM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
There is no differentiation between a mainstream movie playing in an IMAX Dome (Omnimax) screen, a 15/70 IMAX film screen, and an MPX IMAX Digital screen.

Not many mainstream movies play on IMAX Domes, but it happens. IMAX still does not differentiate between the large IMAX screens and the MPX conversions. At this point, one should assume that an "IMAX Experience" movie will be done with IMAX Digital, but that's not a universal fact yet.

They do. Over at IMAX.com, it says in the theatres section, IMAX 3D Theatres, IMAX Theatres, or IMAX Dome. There are colour coded for differentiation.

Under BLUE coloured IMAX 3D Theatre, it states found in a multiplex and they are either Digital or Film Retrofit 15/70 with sceen sizes 47x24 up to 74x54. (It makes clear these retrofit theatres)

Under Green coloured IMAX Theatre, it states, classic designed theatre in a purpose built building that allows a larger screen size. 15/70 with screen size 51x37 to 117x96.

Then there is Dome

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 02-02-2011, 05:57 AM:

quote:
They should have differentiated the two "experiences" and made that difference clear from the get-go.

Technically they do. Every Hollywood film I have seen stated "An IMAX (3D) Experience" whereas traditional IMAX documentaries are simply called IMAX then the title

Umm this has not been my experience, I have seen several IMAX 3D documentries which also stated "An IMAX 3d experience!" When I saw the latest Harry Potter film it did not state an "IMAX 3D experience" The Dark Knight also was 2d but did feature genuine 15/70 footage. Now if only they would shoot an entire feature that way!

Better still might be an action movie in Showscan! Lets see what James Cameron does with Avatar 2 ?

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-02-2011, 01:50 PM:

Cameron. I am looking at the IMAX site and Hollywood movies are branded "TRON: Legacy, an 3D IMAX Experience" or "TransformersL The IMAX Experience" whereas the traditonal IMAX films are called "Sea Rex: Journey to a Prehistoric World 3D" or "IMAX Hubble"...

I don't know why people are getting so huffy puffy about IMAX. The theatres are called IMAX Theatres and are clearly stated as 15/70 on the website while megaplex theatres are not called "IMAX Theatres" and instead called "& IMAX" and are coloured blue to seperate themeselves from the 15/70 cinemas which is also stated on the website,

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 02-03-2011, 03:35 PM:

Tom,

I stand corrected, as I had not been to IMAX's theater tool since they added those indicators of IMAX 3D, IMAX, and IMAX Dome.

Unfortunately, IMAX's web site doesn't accurately differentiate between an IMAX screen that is MPX vs. the traditionally large screens.

A case in point is Regal Hacienda Crossings Stadium 21 & IMAX in California. The IMAX web site marks it with a blue marker, meaning that it is an "IMAX 3D Theatre" with either digital or film, that has a screen somewhere between 47' x 24' to 74' x 46', but according to LFExaminer, it has a screen measuring 55.8 x 76.4 feet, and as of 2009, it was using a GT film projector. That means (to me) that it is the traditional IMAX screen, but the way that IMAX.com is depicting it, one would think that it is nothing more than a typical MPX screen.

Even the Scotiabank IMAX that you attended, which has a screen on the order of "62.5 feet by 90 feet" is identified on the IMAX site as "IMAX 3D" so once again, there's no useful indication to the customer, except for whether that theater is capable of showing IMAX 3D, which is pretty obvious if you're looking at a movie called "TRON: Legacy An IMAX 3D Experience"

A quick check of other theaters known to be the larger variety are all marked with blue "3D" markers. In fact, there are very few theaters marked with the green icon that would designate a traditional IMAX screen.

And I think that is why people "jump" on IMAX, because IMAX is not differentiating the two types of IMAX Experiences that are possible. A little transparency would have gone a long way, and it would silence the critics, and provide valuable information to their customers. Instead, they continue to stand behind what many feel was a branding mistake, and that's why the wound gets opened up from time to time.

For my part, I dislike seeing mainstream movies blown up on the large IMAX screens, but I do appreciate the extra impact that the sound systems deliver (this is something that way too many theaters skimp on, either because of customer complaints, or because they won't invest in decent sound systems and the calibration thereof). I have been to the Lincolnshire IL IMAX and to the AMC IMAX's both in Milwaukee and Madison WI, and I do not feel compelled to pay the IMAX surcharge for the experience for most movies.

Getting back to your original back-to-back comparisons, that's the best way for someone to assess for themselves the value of each offering. Unfortunately, with all the surcharges, doing so would represent quite a tidy sum!

My impression is that Tron is a fairly dark movie, so I wonder what your impressions would be at those same theaters if they were playing something with brighter content? Plus, if 3D were taken out of the equation, one wonders how the results might change? Lots of variables, indeed!

With IMAX, UltraAVX, ETX, RPX, XD, and the like, it's unfortunate that marketing hype seems to overwhelm the real benefit of providing the best possible experience to the paying customer. It's much easier to advertise "wall to wall screens" than it is to brag about fully calibrated sound systems delivering symphony-quality audio, I guess...

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 02-06-2011, 03:59 AM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
And I think that is why people "jump" on IMAX, because IMAX is not differentiating the two types of IMAX Experiences that are possible. A little transparency would have gone a long way, and it would silence the critics, and provide valuable information to their customers. Instead, they continue to stand behind what many feel was a branding mistake, and that's why the wound gets opened up from time to time.

Actually they do differntiate what is playing at the theatre. A digital IMAX Expeerience clearly states "DLP Cinema Technologies" ad right after the "think big" IMAX trailer. Then the movie starts.

The 15/70 experience shows off the speaker locations etc with lights behind the screen, like a classic IMAX theatre does. They also use the strobe light show in these theatres.

At least, this is what happens in my area.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 02-06-2011, 07:53 PM:

quote:
I don't know why people are getting so huffy puffy about IMAX. The theatres are called IMAX Theatres and are clearly stated as 15/70 on the website while megaplex theatres are not called "IMAX Theatres" and instead called "& IMAX" and are coloured blue to seperate themeselves from the 15/70 cinemas which is also stated on the website,

That still makes it quite difficult for average members of the general public to know what they are getting with IMAX. Most people won't be going to the IMAX website to check this out.
Most people will just see the word 'IMAX' printed on the theatres own website or print advertising etc and expect a certain standard of presentation.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-27-2011, 10:10 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
it really is the way to see high-end presentation today and it beats out other formats every time, be it 3D or 2D.

Looking back at this, I have to agree.

quote: Frank Angel
I think IMAX-Digital theatre are the new 70mm venues of the 60s, 70s & 80s.

I would have to add in (I know they are not the same and THX and IMAX are different) but IMAX has replaced THX is some markets in a sort of way.

In 90s, the GTA would have six or seven THX houses. Today we have six or seven IMAX Digital houses.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-27-2011, 01:48 PM:

Tom said "In 90s, the GTA would have six or seven THX houses"
sorry but in the late 90's and early 2000's we had far more screens certified and regularly checked

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-27-2011, 03:00 PM:

Gordon, in the 90s there a 6 or 7 theaters with THX in the Toronto area. York, Eglinton, Sussex, Uptown where it for a long while until Coliseum and Phantom Menace came out. 2000's were a long more thanks to all the Silver City's and Coliseum's popping up. Now they are no longer certified.

Toronto has not ONE single screen in the whole area.

I remember Sherway, Canada Square and Fairview were certified until around 1992 when they abandoned it.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-27-2011, 03:41 PM:

hmm all those theatre maintained there THX speakers amps and crossovers so other than maintanence issus they are more or less structurally intact
Often the only area on a recert that failed was due to a blown speaker or HVAC noise issues

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-27-2011, 04:35 PM:

BTW, the "& IMAX" doesn't always tell you that it isn't 15/70 (although it usually would). The only theater running 15/70 for MI4 in Houston is the "Marq*E Stadium 23 & IMAX" and my guess is that they'll get rid of the 15/70 after Dark Knight Rises.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-27-2011, 09:16 PM:

quote: Gordon McLeod
hmm all those theatre maintained there THX speakers amps and crossovers so other than maintanence issus they are more or less structurally intact
Often the only area on a recert that failed was due to a blown speaker or HVAC noise issues

Yes, but you are right. But they were not advertised as THX. When I was at Sherway, it was former THX in 1,3,5 but they were not certified at that time. When Episode I came out, Cineplex certified #1/#3 with Dolby EX but they left #5 untouched.