Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The IMAX Digital Experience

This is topic The IMAX Digital Experience 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=000984

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-20-2011, 11:39 PM:

Saw my first movie in IMAX digital today. Mission Impossible 4, if you must know. What follows is my experience.

Enter the auditorium. Screen is floor to near-ceiling height. No masking. Bigger than other screens in the complex, but not giant like one is used to seeing in IMAX screens. We take our seat. No ads and no non-sync sound of any kind. This is probably the most IMAX-like part of the entire experience as I remember when I used to go see boring, dusty documentaries in IMAX as a kid, it was the same way. I approve of this.

Time for movie to start. We now hear an voice-only introduction to how awesome IMAX is and how much we will want to suck us some IMAX dick for we are in an IMAX auditorium. Also, this is IMAX. Did you know this was IMAX?

Trailers start. Letterboxed for scope. The shape of the image is that of a smile on the screen despite there being very little curve. I did notice that the bottom of the screen does not meet the floor across the entire width, only in the middle of the room. The trailer was framed towards the top half of the screen. There were two black bars below the trailer, the bottom one darker than the other immediately above it (presumably because nothing was being projected on screen, not even black.) Three trailers play.

After the third trailer, we are treated to an audio/video IMAX logo telling us how awesome IMAX is and how much we will want to suck IMAX dick because this is IMAX. It talks about nonsense nobody cares about like "laser aligned sound" and "Couple thousand watts of power" and other shit that doesn't mean anything other than to sound impressive. Obviously, this type of marketing is directed towards stupid people only. Anyway, the trailer went on to tell us how everything we would see from this point on would be so incredibly immersive that we would likely become permanently attached to our seats due to our genitals spewing out gallons of uncontrolled, sticky liquids due to the IMAX experience. This IMAX show-off trailer filled the screen to the top but did not fill the bottom section.

Now there are three more trailers but get this... they are framed LOWER than the first three. That's IMAX's definition of immersive. There were still two black bars underneath the trailer, with the bottom one being the darkest. If you're never going to project anything there, why have screen there? Oh? To make people think the screen is actually bigger than it is? I see. Catering to stupid people again. Seriously, only stupid people would spend $17 a ticket so I guess they've got the right demographic. The same people who attend Digital IMAX movies are the same people who buy Monster Cable because it's "better."

After the sixth trailer, we get YET ANOTHER IMAX trailer! They must think we have the attention span of a gnat. I'm surprised there wasn't a superimposed IMAX logo that appeared on the bottom of the screen sporadically throughout the movie with the tagline "Holy Fuck! Isn't this soooo Immersive?".

Anyway, the movie starts and plays. Parts of Mission Impossible 4 were shot in IMAX (I guess). So some scenes would switch aspect ratios so that it would fill the screen to the top, but it would never, ever fill the screen all the way to the bottom. The image was bright and fairly sharp but I could see aliasing and other artifacts that revealed it was a digital projector. We were sitting more than halfway back from the screen. It was not immersive at all in any way, however. The movie was alright.

Now for the laser-aligned sound with a few thousand watts of power. IT SUCKED! In fact, some of you may remember my previous rant on AMC's ETX auditorium here. I'm not sure which is worse, this IMAX or AMC's ETX. The IMAX definitely had more subwoofer (albeit "boomy" sounding like a home theater setup at a Best Buy store), but the IMAX was even more harsh-sounding. Maybe they are using Klipshit speakers? Why are there so few people in the industry who know how to EQ an auditorium? It caused a ton of physical pain. Perhaps the worst audio I have ever heard. They really should be ashamed of this but likely they are proud of their "IMAX" auditoriums and go home at night and jack off thinking about them. I guarantee that they do not perform any listening tests by qualified people. Why they would want to harm their customer's ears and provide an unpleasant experience is beyond me. Being loud does not mean it needs to hurt. People just don't seem to understand that.

Bottom line: The IMAX experience is horrible. Do not, under any circumstances, pay for anything IMAX. Also, Regal does not care if they cause physical pain to your ears. They hate their customers, clearly.

Bottom line part 2: All theaters in Colorado suck. It didn't used to be this way. I hate going out to see movies but Jen always bug me to and sometimes I give in. Blu-ray is 100x better than the movie experience.

EDIT: I have learned that Mission Impossible 4 had an IMAX DMR-ized mix and that other theaters have been having similar issues. Anyone here have this harshness issue with MI4 Ghost Protocol?

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 12-20-2011, 11:47 PM:

Joe - I want to see pics of your home theater setup [Smile]

no but I agree, I really hate scope (2.35) films on IMAX screens - those black borders above and below the image is such a waste of the screen

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-20-2011, 11:55 PM:

First of all, pics of my living room will impress no one, especially since my current screen is only 34 inches. Hearing it would be another story. Some people here may have heard it but it sounds much, much better than it used to and even back then it sounded much better than most auditoriums in Colorado (I didn't even have EQ capabilities back then).

Secondly, the no-masking/wasted real estate was not my biggest complaint. It was definitely the sound. Theater sound just gets worse and worse it would seem. It's now quantity over quality.

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 12-21-2011, 04:58 AM:

Don't you miss the days when Joe would just come out and tell you what he thought? It must raise blood pressure to have to bottle things up like he's been doing recently.

We're with you, Joe.

Posted by John Thomas (Member # 6509) on 12-21-2011, 05:48 AM:

I rather enjoy our D-IMAX. Our installer seemed very very thorough, so I can see how other installations may have been botched and in turn ruined the experience for a lot of people. I still wouldn't pay such a premium for it, however.

I think the D-IMAX SMS software is its real downfall. It is the most sluggish, unpredictable, thrown-together, poorly designed system I've ever encountered, and this is coming from someone who works primarily with Sony's.

Not sure what to make of their framing issues... non-IMAX trailers should look almost exactly like IMAX trailers but only projected out of one side.

I'll say that non-IMAX trailers do tend to sound horrible on an IMAX. Act of Valor is a perfect example. They EQ the bass really high in the trailer so it sounds pretty bassy in a "normal" auditorium, but then in an IMAX where the bass is already high it drowns everything out and gets positively awkward. I can't blame IMAX for this, really, it's the exhibitors who are choosing to use ugly-sounding trailers.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-21-2011, 07:12 AM:

Joe, all of my Min-Imax "experiences" are much like yours. Also, they really crank up the price for Imax.

There are now some very good large-screen options in my area with better sound and a slightly larger image...and as much as 40% lower in price.

If I really want the "Imax Experience", I'll drive over to Dayton to see the real thing at the Air Force Museum.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-21-2011, 09:29 AM:

I see no point at all for IMAX Digital and don't ever feel like paying any premium to see a movie in the so-called format. It's HDTV resolution material blown up bigger than it should be even though the IMAX-D screens are quite a bit smaller than screens built for film-based IMAX.

If IMAX couldn't make it with its film-based theaters then it just should have gone out of business. The replacement, what some are passing off as an "improvement" is a tremendous step down from film-based IMAX and a giant insult to the intelligence of movie-goers.

IMAX Digital should have just been called something else or at least clearly say IMAX DIGITAL in all the advertising rather than use the IMAX brand alone. Misleading assholes.

The only advantage IMAX Digital has over anything is dual projector digital 3D versus the single projection digital 3D systems found in a lot of theaters. That's all. Funny thing: any theater chain can do its own dual projector 3D setup without involving the IMAX company at all.

If screen size is the deal, any theater can go big and digital without involving IMAX as well. I can see movies projected on a 80' wide screen at the Warren Theater in Moore, OK for standard admission price.

As to the sound aspect and its horrible quality, this doesn't surprise me at all. Far too many movie theaters are operated where sound quality is a mere afterthought. As long as some sound is coming out of the speakers that's good enough. Proper volume level, EQ, etc.? That's a premium theater experience item now. Oh wait. IMAX Digital is already priced as a higher priced "premium" thing already. Um, what's that? Oh. The IMAX-D ticket is only covering the picture. Some business people will bump their heads together and roll out a 7.1 surround extra premium, even higher priced version of IMAX-D where the sound is working properly! Can I get a cut of those profits since I thought of it? Gouge the customers! Rape those wallets!

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-21-2011, 09:42 AM:

If I want to see IMAX I want 15 pref 70MM not crappy IMAX digital. Sound at IMAX has always been sucky.I do not like the format ratio on IMAX at any time taller is not better wider is better it matches the natural concentration pattern of your vision. You look at approximately a 2.20 to 1 ratio and disregard what is above and below that area.

Well anyway I will not shell out my hard earned money to see IMAX.

Thanks for the update Joe!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-21-2011, 09:55 AM:

quote: Ron Funderburg
Sound at IMAX has always been sucky.

?!?

I always thought that sound quality was one of Imax's biggest selling points. All of their systems (from 6-track mag to the current digital system) have impressed me far more than any sound system in a "normal" 35mm or 5/70 theatre. I would have liked to think that this would still be the case for the digital screens (which I still have not seen or heard), but that seems to not be the case.

Aside from Imax, the absolute best sound that I have heard in a cinema was at the Cinerama Dome (now the Arclight) in 2000. There was something magical about that system and I hope that it is still in place in some form.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-21-2011, 10:56 AM:

Haters be hatin', Scott. Haters be hatin'.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-21-2011, 11:43 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
I always thought that sound quality was one of Imax's biggest selling points. All of their systems (from 6-track mag to the current digital system) have impressed me far more than any sound system in a "normal" 35mm or 5/70 theatre.

While plenty of 15/70-based IMAX theaters have had dynamic and loud sound, I never heard any of the ones I visited out-do the sound quality I heard at the GCC Northpark #1 in Dallas. That was a standard theater, although it had a big auditorium. I have heard other standard seated theaters sound better than IMAX houses. The audio problem with the big 15/70 IMAX houses: the audio can be huge and dynamic, but it sometimes sounds closer to a boomy concert arena P.A. system than a good movie theater sound system. Northpark had startling dynamics but also very rich, clean, well balanced sound.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-21-2011, 12:14 PM:

Much of what Bobbie says it what I have experienced as well. Perhaps 20 years ago the sound was better. You have to remember that most of the IMax content is really filmed for TV. I have just never heard it sound as good as 70MM 6 track Mag sound. Sorry that is what I have experienced and I have never seen a major motion picture in IMax. I don't really have a desire to unless it is 70/15 and then it is letter-boxed so is the picture any bigger than a big normal theater?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-21-2011, 12:44 PM:

Maybe it sounded better 20 years ago because you guys had better hearing 20 years ago!

Hey it happens... [Smile]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-21-2011, 01:08 PM:

quote: Ron Funderburg
Bobbie

Not meaning to nitpick, but I spell my name "Bobby," not the feminine version ending in "ie" or "i".

One fellow I know here in Lawton repeatedly kept spelling my name "Bobbie" in civic club related group e-mails despite being asked to correct it. I had to tell him to use "Bob" since he couldn't figure out how to make the visual connection of how I spelled my first name in our club's newsletter. I was prepared to start calling him "Alice" instead of "Al" if he wanted to press his luck any further.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-21-2011, 01:36 PM:

Bobby sorry dude! Don't know how that happened!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-21-2011, 03:03 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I spell my name "Bobby," not the feminine version ending in "ie" or "i".

Well that's better than a couple of years ago when Ron called you "Booby" by accident! [Smile]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-21-2011, 03:40 PM:

A Bosnian friend at school is named Senad. One of the professors from China accidentally called him Saddam. Before then, he'd called me Christy a few times. Though he has an excuse that all these European names are impossible for them to get right. haha

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-21-2011, 04:11 PM:

Years ago I used to know the Hogg sisters, whose father had named them Ima and Ura. (Really.)

Which is even worse than the triplets that I had heard about (but never personally met) named X, Y and Z.

Posted by James. R. Deeter (Member # 837) on 12-21-2011, 04:54 PM:

Bobby, Have you heard that Warren is looking to install an IMAX digital screen at Moore after the success of the Wichita IMAX ?

Posted by Frederick Lanoy (Member # 5416) on 12-21-2011, 04:55 PM:

There is one thing i don't understand with Digital IMAX. Christopher Nolan and Brad Bird shoot some selected scenes of "Batman " and "MI4" in glorious 70 mm 15 perfs. I find it's really great.

But don't they see that digital IMAX kills the film quality ? It's obvious that their dual 2 K projectors are unable to show the resolution of the original film. So why keep filming in 70 mm if it's so hard and expensive ? The audience will only see 2 K resolution on fake 1.85 screen at 17 dollars. And, now it concerns 80 % of IMAX screen. What an experience !

I refuse to see "MI:4" in digital IMAX and i refuse to see the next batman too if it's not in IMAX film. To me, IMAX will be completly dead the day the last 70 mm projector will stop.

To be acceptable "The digital IMAX experience" has to be really improved with 4 K resolution (at least) and laser projection. And quick.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-21-2011, 05:48 PM:

quote: James. R. Deeter
Bobby, Have you heard that Warren is looking to install an IMAX digital screen at Moore after the success of the Wichita IMAX ?

I haven't heard that before, but it wouldn't surprise me if Warren added on an IMAX Digital screen to their Moore, OK 14-plex or merely converted one of the two big screen theaters over to IMAX branding.

Still, it won't make any difference to me. I'm not paying anything extra to see something in IMAX Digital regardless of the theater chain presenting it. If the IMAX Digital theater in Wichita is successful it probably is for other obvious reasons: no film-based IMAX theater showing Hollywood films nearby, Warren Theaters has an otherwise very good reputation and there's no shortage of people into brand worship (IMAX brand worship in this case) while overlooking very important details about the product's limitations.

quote: Frederick Lanoy
But don't they see that digital IMAX kills the film quality ?

I'm certain Christopher Nolan and Brad Bird did not shoot the IMAX footage in their movies with HDTV resolution IMAX Digital in mind. They made it for film-based IMAX theaters. The few remaining film-based IMAX theaters that is. It's kind of telling when Nolan demanded the 6-minute prologue of The Dark Knight Rises be shown only in film-based IMAX theaters.

I think The Dark Knight Rises will be the last hurrah for the true, film-based IMAX format. Once that movie finishes its run IMAX, at least in terms of Hollywood's use of it, will be effectively dead.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-21-2011, 05:50 PM:

I think Mr Nolan loves real 15/70 IMAX and is doing his part to show off IMAX and 35mm anamorphic to the best of his ability.
Those remaining IMAX and 35mm done right screens will hopefully benefit greatly from this.

I would say there is still a good trickle down of quality for DCinema,Liemax and Blu-ray.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-21-2011, 06:38 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm certain Christopher Nolan and Brad Bird did not shoot the IMAX footage in their movies with HDTV resolution IMAX Digital in mind.

I'm certain Christopher Nolan and Brad Bird are intelligent filmmakers who were well aware only 30 or so of the 300 or so IMAX locations are still showing 15/70 when they decided to shoot their films they way they did, and with the understanding that another 3000 or so theatres wouldn't be able to screen as much information in 35mm or non-IMAX DLP (including most PLF screens) as even IMAX digital.

But again, I can only speak for my own theatre, which most definitely has a 1.44:1 image ratio in our IMAX digital house.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-21-2011, 07:44 PM:

quote: Jim Henk
Don't you miss the days when Joe would just come out and tell you what he thought? It must raise blood pressure to have to bottle things up like he's been doing recently.

What is the point of this post? Brad was right when he said in another thread that he was counting down until someone posted "Now tell us how you REALLY feel". I agree with you, though... opinions are a bad thing and we should be very gentle with them. We certainly don't want to hurt anyone's precious feelings. Sorry if I scared you by having actual emotions.

quote: John Thomas
I'll say that non-IMAX trailers do tend to sound horrible on an IMAX. Act of Valor is a perfect example. They EQ the bass really high in the trailer so it sounds pretty bassy in a "normal" auditorium, but then in an IMAX where the bass is already high it drowns everything out and gets positively awkward. I can't blame IMAX for this, really, it's the exhibitors who are choosing to use ugly-sounding trailers.

You're a bit uninformed about this. The exhibitors aren't choosing to use "ugly sounding trailers", they're simply programming the trailers they are told to. Those trailers are mixed with a theater sound system in mind. For whatever reason, IMAX has their own EQ so you can 100% blame IMAX for this. Playing those trailers in an IMAX auditorium will make 'em sound boomy. IMAX systems should compensate for this by having a normal EQ option available. But in all honesty the trailers should be run at a lower volume and without subwoofer. Is an IMAX auditorium even capable of such awesome automation? I doubt it.

I thought my hearing was maybe less than it used to be, but the super-high frequencies that rip my ears to shreds in Mission Impossible 4 IMAX and AMC's shitty ETX screen lead me to believe otherwise. Go listen to MI4 on your LieMAX screen. Listen to the gunshots near the very beginning. Tell me how it sounds. If it sounds "fine", then that means Regal is trying to cause harm and damage their customer's hearing on purpose.

quote: Edward Havens
Haters be hatin', Scott. Haters be hatin'.

That's right. We should be forced to like everything. Having a negative opinion on something is just wrong. Good call on that one. Now let's all hold hands, dance and sing like we have not a care in the world!

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-21-2011, 07:49 PM:

Funny but IMAX used to follow the standard house ISO curve for house eq

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-21-2011, 07:57 PM:

This article is pretty good, however it does say this:

quote:
The 70mm projector has been replaced with two Christie 2K projectors which use proprietary image processing. The two 2k images are projected over each other. The resolution is estimated to be about 12,000 × 8,700 theoretical pixels or 6,120 × 4,500 actually discernible pixels.

So I guess in a LieMAX setup there is an invisible third projector or maybe even four to six theoretically invisible projectors. I have tried adding it up over and over again and somehow I just can't make 2048 + 2048 = 12,000 or even 6,120. Maybe someone can check my math?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-21-2011, 08:26 PM:

...wouldn't the pixel count be the same if one image is projected over the other..just that the two machines were used to just fill the screen with the required luminance?

Posted by Keegan O'Brien (Member # 6539) on 12-21-2011, 10:30 PM:

Those resolutions are for 70mm, not digital.

Digital IMAX is off and on. The one in my hometown is fantastic. Incredible sound, perfect bass levels, nice and bright projection, 1.44:1 (despite the PJ's being 16:9) 4 story screen... It's great. However the other two I went to were horrid. The one in Bend Oregon is a joke. I imagine your experience was similar to mine in Bend. Terrible.

However, the minor aliasing isn't because of the projectors. I'm assuming it has something to do with the DMR process, because I've seen it on 70mm prints as well.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-22-2011, 01:52 AM:

quote: Keegan O'Brien
Those resolutions are for 70mm, not digital.

That's not the way the article is worded. They talk about the resolution in reference to the two 2k projectors. Also, those resolutions would seem awfully low for a real IMAX print.

Posted by John Thomas (Member # 6509) on 12-22-2011, 03:13 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
You're a bit uninformed about this. The exhibitors aren't choosing to use "ugly sounding trailers", they're simply programming the trailers they are told to. Those trailers are mixed with a theater sound system in mind. For whatever reason, IMAX has their own EQ so you can 100% blame IMAX for this. Playing those trailers in an IMAX auditorium will make 'em sound boomy. IMAX systems should compensate for this by having a normal EQ option available. But in all honesty the trailers should be run at a lower volume and without subwoofer. Is an IMAX auditorium even capable of such awesome automation? I doubt it.

You're right. I'm not sure why I felt the need to defend IMAX on that one. And I'm positive the hardware is perfectly capable of that sort of automation, but macros are pretty much on lockdown even with a "superuser" account.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 12-22-2011, 09:26 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I have learned that Mission Impossible 4 had an IMAX DMR-ized mix and that other theaters have been having similar issues. Anyone here have this harshness issue with MI4 Ghost Protocol?

When I went to see MI4 on the IMAX at AMC Loews Lincoln Square (the only REAL 15/70 IMAX in the area), the sound wasn't harsh at all. I found it dynamic and loud with ribcage-shaking bass, and I even felt directional low end effects across the front speakers. I can tell you however, that during the trailer at the end of the DKR prologue, there was TOO MUCH bass that mids and highs were almost fatiguing, or perhaps it was mixed that way. You can read more of my experience here.

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 12-22-2011, 12:27 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
...we are treated to an audio/video IMAX logo telling us how awesome IMAX is and how much we will want to suck IMAX dick because this is IMAX. It talks about nonsense nobody cares about like "laser aligned sound" and "Couple thousand watts of power" and other shit that doesn't mean anything other than to sound impressive.

They even have that stupid trailer on film based Imax presentations:

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-22-2011, 01:22 PM:

...wonder if that's RMS ... and who's gonna listen to 12kw of sound..might as well be standing beind a F-15 when it revs it engines up for takeoff on a flight deck of a carrier.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 12-22-2011, 04:40 PM:

quote: Sean Weitzel
They even have that stupid trailer on film based Imax presentations

I think Joe is talking about this trailer, that is not available in 15/70:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fwkfdmu7J4

Regardless, I think the countdown trailer (that has been in rotation since 2004) has become a favorite of mine, regardless of how stupid it attempts to advertise IMAX. At least it's better than the newer one.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-22-2011, 05:30 PM:

I think the "laser aligned sound" thing seems pretty funny. Lasers are optical devices. What does that have to do with measuring and adjusting audio? I thought various types of microphones and frequency range sensing equipment were a little more vital for that.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-22-2011, 05:41 PM:

The idea is that they use lasers when positioning/aiming the loudspeakers. They shine a laser and point the speaker at exactly where they want it to point in the auditorium. It's not rocket science and it really isn't a selling point. But "laser" sounds cool, you see...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-22-2011, 05:52 PM:

The whole idea of advertising wattage is pretty old-fashioned nowadays anyway. Remember when you were in competition with your friends to see who had the most watts in your car stereo (or home receiver/amplifier)?

Nowadays people don't seem to pay as much attention to those numbers because they're so meaningless without knowing what scale they're measured on. A 100-watt RMS amplifier might be able to put out 2000 watts in a tenth-of-a-second burst, so of course 2000 is the number that's going to be picked up by the marketing department.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-22-2011, 09:18 PM:

When I first heard the laser aligned thing I thought of laser leveling tools. I have a miter saw with a laser built into it (totally useless feature in daylight).

Yes, the whole wattage thing is pretty stupid too. I imagine a lot electronics salesmen have fun explaining that one to customers when they ask why one 5.1 surround receiver with 5x100 watts costs only $300 when another with 5x100 watts costs $2000.

What matters to me, and what should matter to more theater customers, is a theater making sure the auditorium has a very good quality sound system and room acoustics, that the sound system is carefully tuned and then continually maintained in great shape. Maintenance is especially a very big deal. I've been to more than a few theaters that sounded pretty good in their first weeks of operation and then slid way downhill after that.

Posted by John Thomas (Member # 6509) on 12-23-2011, 02:34 AM:

As a side-note: one of the channels that comprises those "12,000 Watts" goes to the booth monitor.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-23-2011, 03:21 AM:

The whole "12,000 watts" thing is just hype for morons.
12,000 watts at what distance from the speakers, at what frequency, pink, white or grey noise, &tc.

It's a totally meaningless figure because the major influential factor, speaker efficiency, is not specified.

Still, even morons have expendable income, right?

Ruthless People Dominator X-1 Sales pitch

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-23-2011, 03:31 AM:

Course, 12Kw buys a lot of audio headroom before saturation and distortion...

Posted by Frank B. McLaughlin (Member # 6683) on 12-23-2011, 08:45 AM:

The problem is that I get a better presentation with my very inexpensive In-Focus X9 projector (96" diagonal screen) and Denon 7.1 with (again inexpensive) Colorado Speaker Service speakers pushing Blu-Ray than most of theaters in the city. Now just why is attendance down 19%??

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-23-2011, 10:51 AM:

Man, between Frank's first post above and Joe's various posts over the years, the movie theatre scene in Denver must completely suck. Somebody should come in there, build some good places and take over!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-23-2011, 03:05 PM:

It used to be quite good but now we have very few knowledgeable people left working in the industry here. Some of the good ones have now been regulated to management duties. I'm pretty sure we don't have anyone local who knows how to make an auditorium sound good (aside from myself, of course [Smile]

). You can't just EQ it on your RTA hooked to ancient microphones with dulled sensitivity and call it a day, you've gotta listen with known material and make fine adjustments.

But yeah, with the chains we have (AMC and Regal) there is little hope. We only have a few independents and they're pretty small and are pretty poor in presentation (most notably one Latino cinema whom I offered temporary help to and they were interested until they found out my wage). Alamo Drafthouse is coming in soon and theaters here are panicking. The AMC 24 plexes are going to a self-serve-style cafe and are considering adding bars just to get the jump on the place. Of course that has nothing to do with the actual presentation of a movie.

I really wish a Studio Movie Grill would open up here, but they don't seem interested. Plus, there's nowhere for them to build since everything is already over-saturated by Regal and AMC. In Lakewood Regal has a 16 and a 12 plex right across the street from each other, both showing first run stuff.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-23-2011, 03:09 PM:

It's not so much Denver is lacking "good places" to see a movie. The problem is the senior management that is screwing up the good places to see a movie. Look at how the Continental theater was screwed up and screwed up again in recent years. I'm sure Joe and others in the Denver area could go into great detail how that market has gone to hell. Colorado Springs isn't any better either, especially since Cinemark yanked the 15/70 film projection system from its IMAX theater and put in the digital nonsense.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-23-2011, 03:11 PM:

Agreed, the existing places could be made to be good, but that's not gonna happen any time soon, I'm afraid. The Continental has been permanently defaced.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-26-2011, 11:38 PM:

quote: John Thomas
I rather enjoy our D-IMAX

I do as well. I actually really like the whole DMR process, I also have never ever had an issue with IMAX digital whereas regular 35mm is hit and miss most of the time and you never really know if it is going to be a good presentation.

With 15/70 IMAX, I saw TRON which had a nice big green dot running the whole movie. And IMO there are only a few sweet spots in the 15.70 theater to get good seats.

I often take a look at 35mm of the same movie right after leaving the theater and I always amazed at how bad 35mm can be.

So far I have seen about 10 IMAX Digital movies, never ever had an issue and I have always left happy and satisfied.

AMC charges $15.50 for IMAX Digital while Cineplex Odeon charges $18.99 for 15/70. But Cinepex does charge less for IMAX in each market.

Posted by John Thomas (Member # 6509) on 12-27-2011, 09:51 AM:

Tom, have you been to the D-IMAX to which I was referring? The point of that part of my post was that I don't think all D-IMAX theatres are created equal.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-27-2011, 09:59 AM:

quote: John Thomas
The point of that part of my post was that I don't think all D-IMAX theatres are created equal.

And I don't think all D-MAX theaters are created either. I always go to the same IMAX at AMC cinema.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-27-2011, 12:13 PM:

I would go to a D-IMAX just to see how it looked (although I've can pretty well predict it), but I lost all interest a number of years back when I realized how many hundreds of miles I had to travel to see a quality IMAX show. Everything in the north Texas area absolutely sucks now.

The Fort Worth OMNI used to be awesome, but they lost their chief projectionist a number of years ago and the print quality really took a nose dive.

The OMNI at the State Fairgrounds has really bad film handling skills, and they are afraid to turn the sound higher than "2".

The Cinemark IMAX at Webb Chapel is just flat out the worst IMAX I've ever been to. The sound was obviously tuned by the moron who tuned the auditorium Joe went to because it was probably the worst sound I've ever heard anywhere. My ears were in pain after the show it was so shrill...and it wasn't even all that loud. The print wasn't scratched, but it was dirty. I saw it on opening day so who knows. I don't even want to give that theater a second chance though my first experience was so bad.

Now regular auditoriums are being converted to "IMAX" and the whole thing has become a tremendous joke. IMAX means absolutely nothing now and will quickly go the way of THX.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-27-2011, 12:42 PM:

Brad must have really bad luck with Imax, then.

I can honestly say that I have never had a bad Imax experience. I have only been to 15/70 houses and have intentionally avoided the SR and MPX installations. The full-size version is great, though, and presentation quality has been consistently good. I guess I have seen one show that had a field-flattener with a few specks of dirt on half of it, but that is not something that a typical audience member would notice. Sound quality in the Imax installations that I have visited has also been consistently good (with both magnetic and digital playback systems).

I have never worked for the company and have no personal experience working with formats larger than 5/70; all of my experiences with large format motion pictures have been as a paying customer.

I agree that the dumbing down of the brand (SR->MPX->DLP) is stupid and will kill the company eventually, but the "real" Imax installations are still as good as ever.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-27-2011, 01:33 PM:

Looks like digital - both regular and IMAX - definitely isn't the 'golden egg' for the industry..

Patrons are definitely gonna wise up and either demand better, or go somewhere else, and these issues are the 'golden eggs' that the home ET manufacturers are lusting over for.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-27-2011, 01:39 PM:

Tom there is no theatre in the world despite what (he who can not be named or quoted on this site) say can have 100% uniform coverage it just defies the laws of physics but what one attempts to do is provide the largest number of optimal seats both visually and sound wise
EG18 was a good starting point

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-27-2011, 02:57 PM:

Gordon- you are right. However, there are some that are far superior than others if you are referring to seating. AMC larger theaters are much better than Cineplex large houses.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-27-2011, 04:10 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Brad must have really bad luck with Imax, then.

Scott, the Fort Worth Omni used to be awesome, but other than that one I had to travel to Michigan and the Esquire in California to get a good IMAX presentation. Sadly I never got to see one at the Cinesphere.

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 12-27-2011, 04:28 PM:

Interesting here in the UK, Film Reviewer Mark Kermode claims that 2012 will be the Imax year and is the future and NOT 3D!.

Earlier this year Mark Kermode published a book about the decline of the Projectionist in Cinemas and the loss of Film, now he supports Imax, the system going total Digital within a few years and perhaps visit his local (LieMax) Odeon Imax where it is simply a 2k twin Christie [dlp]

Projector on a 50ft screen, no bigger than some other Digital/Film screens!.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-27-2011, 08:15 PM:

I saw this LIEMAX crap for an $8 surcharge on my 6.50 discount ticket for MI4. Regular price was 16 or 18, I forget.

Regal cinema Atlantic Station Atlanta. At first, i wondered where they placed this new addition. Then when I walked in, I realized they just retrofitted one of the existing auditoriums which was not even that huge. I swear the letterboxed image was probably almost the same size as the old screen in that theater. So am I just paying for a crisper looking image and better sound? And that merits twice what I paid for the ticket? And as far as the special IMAX shot scene in the MI4 opening sequence, it was barely 1.85:1 ratio and not the taller ratio we saw in the last Batman movie. Whether that was the way it was shot or the theater just found a way to cut off the top and bottom, I do not know.

Since it was Christmas day, I didn't have the heart to chew out the manager for the chain's misleading IMAX moniker. Even by Liemax standards, that was a small screen. I just remarked in a nice way that I was confused and if I walked into the right auditorium because it did not look like IMAX to me. I mentioned that i saw TDK at the Regal Mall of GA location and that screen looked much bigger. She then said that Regal actually has converted that screen to digital too and if I took the trouble to drive all the way to that far out suburban location, I won't be seeing the same screen that I saw for TDK.

Another thing that looks bad is the the curve at the bottom of the image like a bad TV where the letterbox image does not have a sharp horizontal border and bows a little.

Also I do not understand how overlapping two 2K projectors increases the resolution? Don't both projectors have the same image content? Is it just to increase the intensity of the image??

THe sad thing is the image does look good , but not IMAX good. If regular digital presentations were like this, I would be very happy and would be willing to spend a slightly higher ticket price. But an IMAX surcharge is ridiculous for a LIEMAX screen.

At least the IMAX screen in the AMC Barret Parkway location replaced an old 35MM HUGE screen and so I can at least consider that a mini-IMAX location instead of LIEMAX location.

You know, since 70MM wont make a comeback, how about the digital equivalent of 70MM(yes , I know 4K is more akin to good 35MM, but let's take what we can get) and have 4K or even 8K auditoriums fo the mega screens? How costly is it to make 4K digital intermediates when you factor in the total budget of a typical movie? You won't need such cheap gimmicks like Liemax. Cut out the middle man.

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

quote: Pravin Ratnam
THe sad thing is the image does look good

Well there we have it.

Posted by Keegan O'Brien (Member # 6539) on 12-27-2011, 09:35 PM:

quote: Pravin Ratnam
And as far as the special IMAX shot scene in the MI4 opening sequence, it was barely 1.85:1 ratio and not the taller ratio we saw in the last Batman movie. Whether that was the way it was shot or the theater just found a way to cut off the top and bottom, I do not know.

The DLP projectors tallest ratio is 16:9 (give or take)... it's not capable of 1.44:1, which is the original ratio of the IMAX filmed scenes... on 70mm they'll be 1.44:1, like The Dark Knight.

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Also I do not understand how overlapping two 2K projectors increases the resolution? Don't both projectors have the same image content? Is it just to increase the intensity of the image??

It doesn't. It just doubles the brightness... which is really smart for 3D, and really crisp for 2D.

quote: Pravin Ratnam
You know, since 70MM wont make a comeback, how about the digital equivalent of 70MM(yes , I know 4K is more akin to good 35MM, but let's take what we can get) and have 4K or even 8K auditoriums fo the mega screens? How costly is it to make 4K digital intermediates when you factor in the total budget of a typical movie? You won't need such cheap gimmicks like Liemax. Cut out the middle man.

The new IMAX projectors (2013) will be at least 4K.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-27-2011, 11:22 PM:

quote: Keegan O'Brien
The new IMAX projectors (2013) will be at least 4K.

I believe this counts for only the institutional venues.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-28-2011, 11:14 PM:

I was on the IMAX site today, looking at their own description of their 15/70 auditoriums, and it struck me interesting that Classic Design rolling-loop 15/70 houses have/had screens from 51' x 37' to 117' x 96'. Yet my IMAX Digital house is considered by some to be LieMAX because it's a "smaller" screen, yet my screen is larger than 51' x 37'.

Just struck me interesting is all.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-29-2011, 01:48 AM:

quote:

quote:
Pravin Ratnam
THe sad thing is the image does look good
Well there we have it.

Way to take it out of context, Tom Petrov. I said it was good for a regular screening, but unacceptable for what I deem to be an IMAX experience.

Posted by Frederick Lanoy (Member # 5416) on 12-29-2011, 06:13 AM:

quote: Edward Havens
Yet my IMAX Digital house is considered by some to be LieMAX because it's a "smaller" screen, yet my screen is larger than 51' x 37'.

For me, it's not a problem of screen size. I like IMAX because it's 70 mm film projection with a potential of very high resolution. According to me, IMAX becomes LieMax with the use of an inferior digital system.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-29-2011, 10:31 AM:

I think those small 15/70 screens were set up in existing plexes that wanted to jump on the Imax bandwagon in the 90s.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-29-2011, 02:00 PM:

Frederick, I'm referencing comments on social sites like Yelp where IMAX Digital screens like mine are called LieMAX because of the screen size, or the dozens of LieMAX websites set up in 2009 where the impetus is specifically on screen size and aspect ratio.

In fact, the whole crap about LieMAX in 2009 started with Aziz Ansari, whose post references a comparison image between THE LARGEST IMAX SCREEN IN THE UNITED STATES and the IMAX Digital screen at a theatre 3,000 miles away from where he saw his movie. Now, I don't know the size of the IMAX Digital screen in Burbank, which I am damn certain isn't as big as the IMAX screen at Lincoln Square, but then, there is only one other IMAX screen as big as the one at Lincoln Square and it's at its sister theatre, the Metreon in San Francisco.

I'd be curious to know what the average dimensions of IMAX 15/70 screens in commercial movie theatres were in May 2009, and see how that compares to the average IMAX Digital screen deployed at the same time.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-29-2011, 02:50 PM:

Weren't the smaller IMAX screens more of an "IMAX Lite"? Something like MPX or some such nonsense? They used the same film but less in the way of sound. Not sure if there were other differences.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-29-2011, 04:13 PM:

As far as I'm concerned "Lie-Max" is IMAX Digital, regardless of screen size. Furthermore, if a 15/70 film projection system is removed from a real IMAX theater and replaced with digital projectors I'm even less likely to see it there. IMAX Digital's limited 2K native resolution grows worse as screen size is increased. Screen size ain't everything, especially when the native resolution of the material being shown is in the area of HDTV resolution.

I would much rather see 2K resolution video projected on a standard, modest sized movie theater screen than see it blown up to giant size. For instance this is one failing of the 2 large screen houses at the Warren Moore 14 in Moore, OK. Their huge screens are just too damned big for 2K resolution material. They at least need 4K.

Even when film is involved, 2K generated material sucks ass when blown up to the scale of a real IMAX sized screen. I watched Superman Returns in IMAX at the Cinemark IMAX theater in Colorado Springs. The imagery, shot with a 1080p HDTV resolution Panavision Genesis video camera, looked HORRIBLE. Just one great big giant sized BLURRY image. The image resolution was so limited the movie looked like it was out of focus. Kind of like what happens when an amateur wannabe graphic artist "up-rezzes" a low resolution image in Photoshop. Blowing up that tiny JPEG to giant size creates NO additional detail. It just blurs in between the pixels and keeps on blurring. Pretty soon you just have a big, fuzzy, shitty looking image.

So. IMAX Digital really does need to stick to small screens, but it doesn't need the huge up-charge on ticket price and doesn't need to pretend it is the same as the real 15/70 special venue IMAX format. Digital has a very long way to go before it can even get into that ballpark.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-29-2011, 04:33 PM:

Bobby- Did you forget that IMAX also DMR's their Hollywood movies?

Posted by Keegan O'Brien (Member # 6539) on 12-29-2011, 04:37 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Even when film is involved, 2K generated material sucks ass when blown up to the scale of a real IMAX sized screen. I watched Superman Returns in IMAX at the Cinemark IMAX theater in Colorado Springs. The imagery, shot with a 1080p HDTV resolution Panavision Genesis video camera, looked HORRIBLE. Just one great big giant sized BLURRY image. The image resolution was so limited the movie looked like it was out of focus. Kind of like what happens when an amateur wannabe graphic artist "up-rezzes" a low resolution image in Photoshop. Blowing up that tiny JPEG to giant size creates NO additional detail. It just blurs in between the pixels and keeps on blurring. Pretty soon you just have a big, fuzzy, shitty looking image.

That entire film looks soft and hazzy no matter the screen size. That was done purposefully to capture the same soft haze that the original 70's film had; it wasn't because of the limitations of the camera. Perfect example being TRON: Legacy... same camera, but it's sharp and clear.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-29-2011, 06:37 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
In fact, the whole crap about LieMAX in 2009 started with Aziz Ansari, whose post references a comparison image between THE LARGEST IMAX SCREEN IN THE UNITED STATES and the IMAX Digital screen at a theatre 3,000 miles away from where he saw his movie.

The fact that he linked to a blog that likened IMAX to 'New Coke', all this clearly started before that. Sure, his blog brought more attention to it, but I remember this whole thing starting with the initial blog. And

And you'll notice that the comparison picture that Ansari used was from the initial blog. And to be frank, he was quite clear that the comparison picture was generally representative of what was happening at the chain theaters (namely, that these screens with height ~30 feet were being labeled as "IMAX").

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-29-2011, 06:59 PM:

quote: Tom Petrov
Bobby- Did you forget that IMAX also DMR's their Hollywood movies?

No I didn't forget about that. I have never been very impressed at all with 35mm to IMAX blow-ups via the "DMR" process (something I have made abundantly clear in this forum if you would bother to look it up, Tom). Taking HDTV video and blowing it up to IMAX is even worse.

15/65mm film imagery is by far the best thing to show on real IMAX screens. The Dark Knight, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol and The Dark Knight Rises aren't 100% pure IMAX movies, but they at least have some native 15/65 originated content. I'm at least willing to go out of my way to see that.

I've never been enthused about seeing movies in IMAX that are nothing but blow-ups. That practice has been wasteful. It would have been more productive for movie theaters and movie studios to show standard 5-perf 70mm prints in key theaters. For each IMAX blow-up print they could have had three 5/70 prints delivering essentially the same image. Plenty of non-IMAX large screen theaters in the US could have used them.

quote: Keegan O'Brien
That entire film looks soft and hazzy no matter the screen size. That was done purposefully to capture the same soft haze that the original 70's film had; it wasn't because of the limitations of the camera. Perfect example being TRON: Legacy... same camera, but it's sharp and clear.

Superman Returns looked better and was far easier to watch on a standard sized movie theater screen. It just plain didn't work on a screen originally built for 15/70 film exhibition. Blurry image quality aside, the image composition and editing pace didn't work for IMAX either.

Tron: Legacy wasn't taped with the Panavision Genesis video camera. Nevertheless, its 2K 3D video sourced material will look sharper and easier to watch on a modest sized theater screen rather than being blown up at a size far too large for its HDTV resolution imagery to support.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-29-2011, 08:15 PM:

quote:
No I didn't forget about that. I have never been very impressed at all with 35mm to IMAX blow-ups via the "DMR" process (something I have made abundantly clear in this forum if you would bother to look it up, Tom). Taking HDTV video and blowing it up to IMAX is even worse.

15/65mm film imagery is by far the best thing to show on real IMAX screens. The Dark Knight, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol and The Dark Knight Rises aren't 100% pure IMAX movies, but they at least have some native 15/65 originated content. I'm at least willing to go out of my way to see that.

I've never been enthused about seeing movies in IMAX that are nothing but blow-ups. That practice has been wasteful. It would have been more productive for movie theaters and movie studios to show standard 5-perf 70mm prints in key theaters. For each IMAX blow-up print they could have had three 5/70 prints delivering essentially the same image. Plenty of non-IMAX large screen theaters in the US could have used them.

Bobby- interesting response, but compared to almost everything that is coming out on standard 35mm these days, a DMR IMAX Digital movie blows standard 35mm away (Note- Just my opinion). With the odd exceptions (True Grit looked stunning), the standard 35mm norms looks like crap, add in the horrible projection standards (I know, not 35mm fault) and too large of a screen and you have a real crap movie going experience. I am not one to compare IMAX Digital to 15/70, I compare it to standard 35mm or regular digital cinema.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-29-2011, 09:04 PM:

After watching a stunning presentation of WAR HORSE on Christmas day on film, I have found 35mm film showings can be just as good as digital if the labs produce beautiful prints and a projectionist take pride in his work and properly projects the prints on well maintained equipment in the booth.

-Claude

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 12-29-2011, 09:11 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
After watching a stunning presentation of WAR HORSE on Christmas day on film, I have found 35mm film showings can be just as good as digital if the labs produce beautiful prints and a projectionist take pride in his work and properly projects the prints on well maintained equipment in the booth.

Like I said, the odd exception. I walked into most of the theaters where I saw MI4 in IMAX Digital and I could not believe the garbage on the screen from the 35mm prints. Also, the REALD looked like complete crap.

But at the same theater, I remember how stunning True Grit looked in 35mm

Posted by Keegan O'Brien (Member # 6539) on 12-29-2011, 09:21 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Superman Returns looked better and was far easier to watch on a standard sized movie theater screen. It just plain didn't work on a screen originally built for 15/70 film exhibition. Blurry image quality aside, the image composition and editing pace didn't work for IMAX either.

I never saw it in IMAX, but the Blu-ray has always displayed the softest Genesis image I've seen. I'll take your word for it in relation to the composition and editing.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Tron: Legacy wasn't taped with the Panavision Genesis video camera. Nevertheless, its 2K 3D video sourced material will look sharper and easier to watch on a modest sized theater screen rather than being blown up at a size far too large for its HDTV resolution imagery to support.

TRON: Legacy was shot with the Sony F35. All the Genesis is is an F35 retrofitted with Panavision lenses and gear. Same brain. I thought that Transformers: Dark of the Moon looked fantastic on 70mm on a 7 story screen, and it was shot with the F35, ALEXA, and the occasional Anamorphic 35mm take. It didn't look near as good as material shot on 15/65mm stock, but it certainly out did 35mm and digital presentations.