This is topic Warren Grand Infinity Auditorium 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=002171
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 01-11-2015, 06:45 PM:
At the request of Brad, Steven Guttag, and a Facebook friend who peppered me with DM's while I was experiencing explosive diarrhea in a Captain D's bathroom (oh wait, that was also Steven), I am creating a dedicated thread for discussion on Bill Warren's fabulous new multiplex in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma.
This is one of two "Grand Infinity" auditoriums in the building. Notice the screen with the deep curve.
The red stuff is all dark during the feature. There's no accent lighting in the room at all.
To give a bit better perspective, here's a shot from where I initially sat, I think the fifth row or so.
My neck hurts.
Projection is from a 4K laser unit mounted in the ledge of the balcony, so throw is from the middle of the auditorium.
Steve's key questions were "how even is the lighting" and "what about the geometrics of the image". The lighting was pretty even, even sitting that close. But the picture bend was terrible from that close. The green band trailer notice looked like a warped smiley face. But if you moved further back, it was less of a problem. And that image was sharp. Very nice. You want to sit back further anyway to get the full Dolby ATMOS effect.
So will my commute to see movies at a Warren be moving from Wichita to Tulsa? No. I prefer to sit closer and the 13th Avenue Warren's flat screens work for me. I'm also not really sold on Dolby ATMOS so far. But props for trying this. Go check it out if you can.
Anyway...discuss.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-11-2015, 07:44 PM:
I intend to check out the new Warren Broken Arrow location in the next few weeks. It all depends on the movie choices though. Something gives me the impression American Sniper won't be a very aggressive Dolby Atmos mix (I hope I'm wrong about that). Maybe Kingsman: The Secret Service will be worth the 200 mile drive. We'll see.
But yeah, I obviously have some very mixed feelings about a deep curve screen approach like this, given the 'scope format has been shit upon big time by d-cinema. The current letter-boxing like HDTV approach sucks ass 100% and will give theater operators nothing but total incentive to build new theaters totally with common width screens where flat is bigger than scope. Just totally damned backwards. With 'scope already being terribly compromised in d-cinema a deep curve screen might only make matters worse. We'll just have to see about it though.
I e-mailed Warren Theaters a couple different times asking questions about this theater. In both instances Bill Warren responded to my emails, which really surprised me. I figured if I received a response it would have come from someone on a lower rung of the ladder. That seemed pretty cool. When the Broken Arrow Warren first opened its web site page wasn't indicating if movies were being played with Dolby Atmos audio. I asked them to correct that and they did. I also asked if they were going to upgrade the Grand Auditoriums in their Wichita and Moore locations with laser projection and Dolby Atmos. Bill Warren simply said they're thinking about it. So I guess those upgrades may hinge on the success of the Broken Arrow Warren.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-11-2015, 07:49 PM:
Then I think they failed. The idea of a Cinerama type screen IS to sit close to have that thing wrap around you such that you have to turn your head to see it all...just like in real life.
As I figured, they are missing a key element..which is a lens that will distort the image such that it looks "normal" on the deep curved screen. With film, we mostly had that with the ISCO type "C" lenses...horizontal lines were pretty straight to the masking. Vertical lines would pincushion (progressively as you moved towards the sides of the image) but since the width was much larger than the height, it was really only objectionable in the corners. The Magna-Com65 would also do a decent job of creating a good "Flat" image on a deep curve screen.
What should be done for DCinema, if this sort of design is to continue, is to design a purpose built lens that fits the image to the screen and only distort the image in the horizontal plane. Given that Warren is purpose building these theatres, the needed throw ratio(s) should be known. Furthermore, with an anamorphic lens one could have a fixed prime lens for both flat and scope.
I personally think the concept shown hear has more merit than the "Escape" type theatre as the effect could apply to all features. Yes there are those that don't like the deep-curve screen but my 30+ years, I have found that the vast majority of people will flock to a theatre with one. You just don't get that effect in the home. However, you have to do it well. The image has to look as good as possible or it is just a gimmick.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-11-2015, 08:39 PM:
What exactly is Warren trying to do with their curved screen?
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 01-11-2015, 08:56 PM:
I don't hate the concept of a curved screen but I've never seen it done properly.(Never seen Cinerama) Even 90's era AMC Toris screens or whatever they're called drive me NUTS. Bottom center of image gets cut off, curved green bands and everything else. Looks so unnatural.
I was not aware that the new Broken Arrow location was to have curved screens(even if only on the infinity auditoriums), I don't feel nearly so pressed to make it down there now. But I still will at some point.
Bobby perhaps provide Mr. Warren the link to this thread/site after a while to give him some ideas on how to improve the situation and what the pros think... He obviously cares and to that I give him mad props.
If I had a hero... It'd likely be him!
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 01-11-2015, 10:30 PM:
quote: Buck Wilson
Bobby perhaps provide Mr. Warren the link to this thread/site after a while to give him some ideas on how to improve the situation and what the pros think... He obviously cares and to that I give him mad props.
You guys do anything that gets me kicked out of the Warren properties and there will be HELL TO PAY.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-11-2015, 10:46 PM:
I would not be at all surprised if Bill Warren already knows about Film-Tech and its forum.
With such a deep curve screen and a rather unique placement of the laser projector, it would only seem logical to guess there's some kind of unusual lens mounted on that projector -if not something completely custom built, perhaps an optic culled from a projection setup designed for curved screens, like D-150.
Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 01-11-2015, 10:55 PM:
Don't they make a corrective lens for deep curved screens to take out the bending of letters ect. I have seen this used in many deep curved screens and the lettering stays flat across the curved screen. TODD-AO had a special type of lens used in some theatres also. It was mainly for the projection booth that was from high up in the balcony shooting a image way down on a deep curved screen. It did a good job with the keystone effect.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-12-2015, 06:23 AM:
At this point, there is nothing for DCinema that I've been told about or seen. Based on the description and conversation I had with Sam, the image is not being corrected on the screen. The image is indeed "bent."
For everyone else besides DCinema, projectors are allowed to "warp" an image to make them look normal on a curved screen. DCinema prohibits that. So we are stuck with having a lens custom made.
As stated above, there WERE lenses for film to compensate for a deep-curve screen...no, you can't just plop one of those on a DCinema projector.
Posted by Ian Freer (Member # 1940) on 01-12-2015, 01:23 PM:
Although I guess it would be expensive, surely Schneider or some one 'could' make custom lenses for this sort of installation? They have made lenses for Dome cinema installation from 4K DLP and on their website say they can supply with lens mounts for all three DLP cinema projector manufacturers...
Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 01-12-2015, 04:37 PM:
The place looks fantastic! Thanks for the pics Sam. I was in Broken Arrow last year about this time with my wife. I now have another reason to go back and check out the place. Ive always been a huge fan of Bill Warrens' theaters. Wish his Wichita, Kansas locations would get laser and Atmos.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-12-2015, 04:50 PM:
To me the curve looks like D150. There are no pictures of the screen with the curtains open that I know of so I can only assume that's what it's like. With the D150 screen at the Continental in Denver, the top and bottom center of the image was indeed cut off. You'd have to frame a bit high on some movies with subtitles but usually it was OK (just very, very close to the edge). If you think of how the lens sees the screen, it sees it as a 2D bowtie shape. The aperture plate reflects that. That screen has been replaced with Regal's RPX nonsense and I have no idea if the new screen has a curve or not, but I assume the new one is flat.
I do like how this new Warren auditorium has curtains. From what I can tell the stadium seating either seems to be non-existent or not extreme. This is also good. How is the sound in the auditorium?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-12-2015, 07:36 PM:
Warren's Grand Auditoriums (Grand Infinity in this case) all have standard sloped seating to accommodate balconies.
The Grand Infinity houses in Broken Arrow are Warren's first Atmos installations, and they seem to imply through their web site that they're maxed out in terms of amplifiers and speakers. Not sure how one could confirm that just from visiting the theater.
Here is a news story and video about the big curved screens and a look at the screen during installation.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-12-2015, 08:47 PM:
Looking at the video the curve doesn't seem as extreme as this thread had led me to believe. It seems less curved than a D150.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-12-2015, 08:50 PM:
Personally I do not like curved screens at all. A deep curved screen like this would look horrible in my opinion due to the geometric distortion of the image (unless there is something with the lensing that Christie/Warren has done that we don't know about).
Then again I would take a curved screen ANY DAY before a screen without masking.
That being said I don't think there is a single person that doesn't firmly agree with me when I state that Warren's use of actual curtains is a super class act.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-12-2015, 08:52 PM:
As long as we're not capable of reproducing entire light fields and the image is a 2D plane projected on some planar surface, there will always be some kind of distortion. Apparently, our minds are sufficiently trained not to mind this kind of distortion.
I really like the idea of deep curved screens, even though they will only add to the distortion. But, I'm afraid the biggest missing aspect here isn't the non-existing lens or even some digital warping, but the movies themselves. While Cinerama movies were evidently shot with deep curved screens in mind, normal movies weren't. So, no matter what kind of magic warping you would try, it will always look somewhat weird. It will probably work great for scenic shots, but will always be somewhat problematic for closeups.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-12-2015, 09:04 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
The idea of a Cinerama type screen IS to sit close to have that thing wrap around you such that you have to turn your head to see it all...just like in real life.
That might be true in a Cinerama production or a Disney Circle-Vision film, but modern mainstream movies are meant to have the whole picture viewed at the same time. Having to turn your head back and forth to see, for example, two sides of a conversation would be uber-annoying. The solution (for me at least) would be to sit as far back as possible, thus mostly negating the "advantages" of a deep curved screen.
Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 01-12-2015, 09:33 PM:
I think this new curved screen is taller then the old D-150 curved screen was. It will look great on a 1.85 flat film also with side masking. A big image in the middle with a curve. I am trying to get my friend Tim League with Drafthouse to put in one of these curved screens with curtains into his New Mission Theatre soon to open up in SF. Thanks Mr Warren for such a nice new theatre and curved screen. You won't find the boring movie chains doing this with their non curtain X screens.
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-12-2015, 09:50 PM:
Does anyone know if the new Warren theatres is also set up for 35/70mm films?
-Claude
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-13-2015, 06:28 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
but modern mainstream movies are meant to have the whole picture viewed at the same time.
Says who? The whole idea of a "scope" image is to have a ratio WIDER than normal vision.
Have you ever watched a movie in a Cinerama type theatre (with conventional movies)? They work REALLY well. Remember, I worked in such a theatre for about 17 years or so. I think they make ANY movie...even a Woody Allen mono movie look better. The Uptown's (in DC) attendance also is an indicator how a theatre like that competed VERY well to "modern" theatres.
The 1.85 ratio was for those that want a screen shape that is approximately the width of typical vision. Fortunately, we have that ratio (though it is my least favorite...I prefer 1.66 and think the industry should have struck a compromise and for DCinema made the move to 1.78 which splits 1.85 and 1.66 as well as be directly home compatible).
When you put a sharp, minimally distorted image (preferably NONE) on a deep curve screen...it is a much better movie experience, to me, at least. Alas, it is not for everyone and neither are flat screens.
Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 01-13-2015, 08:33 AM:
I agree Steve.
Ya its getting to the point to where I wonder why Directors mess with Scope aspect at all anymore? Sure its a great format when done right, my favorite, but theres probably 1% or less theaters that can properly project Scope anymore. Especially the way new theaters are being built. I don't get it. I guess we are still in a transition period from film to DCI. Will movie studios and the exhibition industry ever be on the same page?
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 01-13-2015, 09:28 AM:
1% or less???
Don't think so.
- Carsten
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-13-2015, 09:32 AM:
but that's the problem with the Uptown - because the screen is curved when shown at it's full 2.35 framing, the projected image in the corners does this weird fishbowl bowing thing - which is distracting to say the least - no one has tried or attempted to correct this much to my disdain. This was never a problem when 35mm/65mm film projection was shown - how is this done at the L.A. Cinerama Dome screen is there a lens that corrects this?
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-13-2015, 02:33 PM:
I completely agree with Brad on this. It is way too deep of a curve. The sheer number of lost pixels here just because of the curve has to be absurd.
Also Steve Guttag... Schneider does have or did show some prototype lenses for shooting D-Cinema on to giant screens but they were not intended for a curve this deep and I don't believe they were ever put into production. I spoke to the lens designer at Century who is ex Texas Instruments about doing this sort of lens and he said it would never be economical to do unless someone wanted to pick up the entire tab for the design and the first batch of lenses. Schneider has really wimped out on D-Cinema lenses on an indistry that really supported them for many years!
Mark
Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 01-13-2015, 03:53 PM:
Warren has deep pockets, he may spend the $$ for the curve screen correction DCP lens for his theatres. He goes way over in the price to build his cinemas what the normal theatres will pay. It shows in his style and presentation on each of his theatres. From the lobby, candy counter, bathrooms, curtains, lights, and great help, he knows how to spend his money to make movie fans happy.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 01-13-2015, 04:18 PM:
quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Does anyone know if the new Warren theatres is also set up for 35/70mm films?
-Claude
Warren has a few second run locations that may or may not still have 35mm(I doubt it and know for sure the Springfield Palace is digital) and am 99% sure none are set up for 70mm.
I'd wager a bet 100% of Warren screens are digital-only
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-13-2015, 07:09 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Says who? The whole idea of a "scope" image is to have a ratio WIDER than normal vision.
I don't think so...to me the idea is to fill as much of your vision as possible, not MORE than 100% of your field of vision. You shouldn't have to turn your head back and forth to see the whole movie. This is why most people (other than kids) don't like to sit too close to the screen.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-13-2015, 07:36 PM:
Again...wrong...the reason for the aspect ratio to be W I D E R than your field of vision is to require head motion. If you merely move back to allow it to "fit" then it ceases to be a "Panoramic" view of the world but merely a smaller image with less height. That is, your statement all but justifies common width screens (don't want to have the image go beyond your field of vision in your "preferred seat in the house").
If you like everything within your filed of vision, then "flat" is your format.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-13-2015, 08:42 PM:
I don't see where "requiring head motion" has anything to do with the shape and content of the picture. It's a compositional thing, that's all. "Scope" is just better for showing grand sweeping scenes or big action. Nothing to do with whether my head is moving or not.
I like scope pictures better than flat ones just because it makes a grander looking picture. But I like to sit far enough back where I can see the whole screen at once.
If people preferred it "your way" our front five rows would be filled every night and nobody would ever sit in the balcony. In real life the opposite is true. The only time most adults sit in the front third of the auditorium is when the back sections are full.
I have here an article from 1953 when the Roxy was installing Cinemascope. Back then they were marketing the larger picture as providing a "three dimensional" viewing experience, which is ridiculous but that's marketing for ya! But no mention of overfilling the field of vision.
quote: 1953 article
This screen, when installed, will accommodate regular motion pictures, as now projected, and also the new Cinemascope method of projection, wherein the illusion of three dimensions, height, width and depth will be realistically placed before the audience without the use of colored glasses or anything other than normal vision. It is the last word in the new three dimension method of presenting motion pictures - the same method as was employed at the initial and phenomenal showing of "The Robe," which has been widely acclaimed the world over. Two and one half times as much subject matter is projected on the new wide screens as is seen on the ordinary movie screen.
Having said all of the above, I will agree with Brad and Joe that the curtains are super classy and the curve on that screen doesn't look as extreme as the closed-curtain pictures make it look.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-13-2015, 09:40 PM:
quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Does anyone know if the new Warren theatres is also set up for 35/70mm films?
No. Not currently.
However, an Ultra Panavision 70mm setup to show Quentin Tarantino's next movie would probably be pretty cool on that kind of giant, deep curved screen. But this is assuming QT actually follows through with filming The Hateful Eight in Ultra Panavision 70mm.
quote: Mike Blakesley
That might be true in a Cinerama production or a Disney Circle-Vision film, but modern mainstream movies are meant to have the whole picture viewed at the same time.
Yes. Traditional feature films/movies have almost always been photographed with the frame of the image in mind. There is usually some kind of image composition at work. Concepts like the rule of thirds and the Fibonacci spiral (or "golden spiral") don't work without a picture frame. The use of curtains and masking on the screens only further confirms the importance of the image frame as well as its aspect ratio.
Special venue films made specifically for true 15/70mm IMAX screens and IMAX Dome screens don't follow the same compositional rules because the screens are designed to fill peripheral vision. The screens are gigantic and positioned closer than usual to the viewer. Compositions have to be weighted more toward the lower center of the screen, especially in a dome screen theater.
It's not as important for things like curtains and masking to be installed on such screens because they're pretty much out of the field of vision of most viewers. All of these wannabe IMAX theaters, including many of the IMAX-branded ones, totally miss this point. They ditch the curtains and masking and make the screen big as possible, but do so in what is still a regular movie theater auditorium, even if it's a bigger room. Viewers can still see all the geometry of the screen. The end result is a screen that sort of looks like an IMAX screen, but is really something much smaller and cheaper looking.
quote: Jarod Reddig
Ya its getting to the point to where I wonder why Directors mess with Scope aspect at all anymore? Sure its a great format when done right, my favorite, but theres probably 1% or less theaters that can properly project Scope anymore.
IMHO, 'scope seems totally screwed in the long term. In d-cinema 'scope is now the smallest, lowest resolution format. On 35mm it was the biggest, brightest and highest resolution format. And 'scope has a close relationship with 5-perf 70mm film formats.
Movie studios, movie theaters and technology companies will have to make some fundamental changes in order for 'scope not to be a lesser quality format in d-cinema.
quote: Steve Guttag
The 1.85 ratio was for those that want a screen shape that is approximately the width of typical vision. Fortunately, we have that ratio (though it is my least favorite...I prefer 1.66 and think the industry should have struck a compromise and for DCinema made the move to 1.78 which splits 1.85 and 1.66 as well as be directly home compatible).
Give it some time. With the way 'scope is being crapped upon in d-cinema (both the way it is projected and the way it is letterboxed on a growing tide of common width screens) I see that format eventually falling out of favor. Right now lots of movies are being cropped down to fake 'scope either in the video camera or post. Eventually there will be a push to "full screen" away all that cropping crap. The fad of using the anamorphic look will die down.
It seemed like there was a big anti 'scope push going on during the 1980's with the start of the home video boom. Remember all those 1.85:1 70mm blow-up movies? The 1980's had a decent number of 'scope films, but it seemed like a lot more movies were shot flat back then. These days 'scope-like framing is very very common in feature movies. But I think those common width screens and all those video cameras are eventually going to push it all towards 1.77:1.
I personally like a variety of aspect ratios in movies. Some movies work well in formats like 1.66:1 or 1.85:1. Others are better suited to 2.2:1 or 2.4:1. Not everything needs to fit just one aspect ratio. For one thing, that's too much like the TV set at home.
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 01-13-2015, 10:03 PM:
Two questions:
1) How big is that screen?
The TV report said "about 6 stories tall". That would put it at 60 feet, which means it's around 143 feet wide if it is 2.39:1. Is that right? Is that a record?
2) When screens get to be that big, is it possible that some curvature actually improves the image?
It would seem that the distance from the projector to the center of the screen is significantly different from the distance to the far corners. Wouldn't some curvature reduce that difference and help maintain focus & brightness across the entire screen?
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-13-2015, 10:10 PM:
quote: Geoff Jones
The TV report said "about 6 stories tall". That would put it at 60 feet, which means it's around 143 feet wide if it is 2.39:1. Is that right? Is that a record?
I thought she that, but looking at the video I am not so sure of it.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-13-2015, 10:41 PM:
Well the video says it's about the size of a basketball court, which is 50x94 feet (NBA size) which isn't exactly a scope image shape but maybe they're talking square footage. I was going to watch the video again to compare the screen height to the reporter standing in front of it but I can't get the video to run at the moment. Stupid internet.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-13-2015, 11:41 PM:
I have a hard time believing that the screen is 94 feet, it looks like it is 60 feet or maybe 65 feet tops.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-14-2015, 12:28 AM:
I have always wondered how big a "story" is for these screens that are "X" stories tall. I remember seeing an Imax screen that was supposed to be 6 stories tall and that thing couldn't have been more than 35 to 40 feet tall. Maybe a "story" is 6 feet for these purposes.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-14-2015, 01:30 AM:
The largest AVX screen I have seen is about 40 feet high. I have never seen an IMAX retrofit screen exceed that height, and nor should they as IMAX Digital is for screens up to 70 feet wide. Usually the AVX screens are in the fixed flat ratio but there are a few rare scope AVX locations
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-14-2015, 06:22 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
If people preferred it "your way" our front five rows would be filled every night and nobody would ever sit in the balcony. In real life the opposite is true. The only time most adults sit in the front third of the auditorium is when the back sections are full.
Sorry, your claim is just plain false. People, in general tend towards the back third of any auditorium (except the very young). The balcony is enough of a novelty nowadays that people will sit there because they can. And furthermore...if you did a study of what is "most comfortable" for people to watch, you'll find that having the image straight ahead and/or down, it will feel more comfortable because our vision is designed for the horizon and below, not so much above. Typically, the further back and up you go satisfies that.
If your claim were true when the making opens up to Scope from Flat, people would migrate back to once again have the image to say within their field of vision. Or if a curtain opened up to reveal a smaller flat screen, they would migrate forward. The only time I've ever seen that is if the flat screen is very small appearing that people feel the need to not seem so far away.
If you sit so far away that the scope screen is within your field of vision, you have cut down on your "grand sweeping" picture and definitely not "grander" since you will have effectively made it look smaller. If you sit in the same place for scope that you sit for flat with flat filling your vision...THEN will scope seam grander and bigger. If you move back until it just fills your vision, you just made it a cropped version of the flat picture.
The "three dimensional" aspect they are trying to convey (and it is advertising to try and get the masses to forget about that tiny TV screen coming into everyone's homes) is that the screen is BIG...a LOT bigger than it was before scope and that it is curved (giving the image "depth." But the emphasis on bigger cannot be overstated here. I've seen/worked in MANY converted theatres that were 4:3 when they were built and converted to "Scope." In many situations, the proscenium had to be covered up to get the screen wider so the screen went in front of the original (which put the screen even closer AND wider) while others altered their proscenium to allow for the wider screen. So again, if 4:3 was comfortable in the design of the theatre, 2.55:1 would be more than significantly wider. The goal was not to make over half the seats unsealable except for late commers.
The theatre I worked for over 17 years would require to be in the balcony to get the scope screen to be within your field of vision yet we could sell it out regularly with most any age group. The front rows would be the last to fill, of course because you also would have to look up pretty heavily as well as seeing the "mechanics" of the film process itself on a deep-curve screen (though the slop of the floor was up on the front 1/3 of the main level).
Mike, you can enjoy what you can enjoy. I would no sooner try to convince you what you find to be comfortable than to tell you what flavor ice cream you should eat but make no mistake, the design of cinemascope and other widescreen processes was not to keep everything in your field of vision.
With respect to screen size...
Remember people, they are trying to promote this thing as the greatest thing so they will interpret the size to their advantage so you have to take into account the curvature. It is longer around the arc than it is straight line (chord). To give an example I'm VERY familiar with. The Uptown in DC is 60-feet wide on the chord. It is about 72-feet around the arc. So when you are ordering a screen (or calculating screen strips in a Cinerama type ribbon screen), you need to order based on the length of the arc though from a viewer's perspective, the screen is no wider than a 60-foot wide flat screen.
With respect to some curvature helping a large screen. No, not in this case like it did for film. With film, we had the film swelling towards the heat (curving) plus likely a curved projection gate. Studies also showed that we focused the image when the film had deflected the most. You have a curved field going to a curved field and particularly in the early days of CinemaScope and the like curving the screen would help focus. With digital, the imagers are flat and the lens is doing nothing to alter that...you are going from a flat plane to a flat plane.
When you project a digital grid on screen, look at the lines, if you are projecting from the center line of the screen (orthogonal projection), they should remain pretty linear. Now if you are applying lens shifting to compensate for some keystoning, you will likely see some stretch as well as some bending of the lines as you get closer to the edge of the lens elements. The edges of the lens are the worst parts of the elements and you are going to get the most defects/distortions there which will show up as softer, more aberrations and non-linearities.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-14-2015, 10:38 AM:
quote: Geoff Jones
The TV report said "about 6 stories tall". That would put it at 60 feet, which means it's around 143 feet wide if it is 2.39:1. Is that right? Is that a record?
Assuming the reporter who stood in front of the screen in the TV report video is an average 5' 6" height it looks like the screen scales to around 40' tall, which is pretty damn big for what does look like a 'scope ratio screen. If the screen is 40' tall the width would come out around 96' across, if not perhaps a bit longer due to the curve.
The flat big screens in Warren's Grand Auditoriums in other locations elsewhere are between 70' and 80' wide.
quote: Steve Guttag
Sorry, your claim is just plain false. People, in general tend towards the back third of any auditorium (except the very young).
Mike didn't say everyone wants to sit up front. He only said if people really wanted the screen filling their field of vision they would sit in the first few rows. Most people don't do that. In a standard sloped auditorium most people will sit near the center of the seating area, not too close, but not too far back either. In stadium seated theaters people gravitate farther back so they can be up higher. In either respect very few people want to be so close that they're looking up at the screen putting a kink in their necks.
Obviously true 15/70 IMAX on a real 15/70 IMAX screen is a partial exception to that. It almost seems like the screen is in your face invading your personal space when it really isn't that close. Nevertheless, special venue movies tailored specifically for IMAX weight their compositions lower in the frame and toward the center of the frame to keep viewers from having to look upward or too far to the left or right.
Hollywood movies shown in IMAX film theaters with portions shot in IMAX don't follow that formula. They compose almost like they're shooting Super35 geared for old 4:3 ratio TV sets, but with a little more headroom. The 'scope format gets extracted from it. From all my experiences watching IMAX special venue movies and Hollywood movies shown in IMAX film theaters, I've found my eyes being forced to wander a lot more often with the Hollywood blow-ups to IMAX. Superman Returns was by far the worst, most uncomfortable example of this I've seen, compounded further by its limited HDTV camera resolution blown up to a very blurry size on a giant IMAX screen.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-14-2015, 12:24 PM:
I didn't mean to imply that he claimed everyone wanted to sit up front...the first rows of most any theatre are too close...you see the mechanics of showing the picture as well as the extreme up-angle to your neck.
As long as I've been showing movies (on my 35th year now)...people have tended towards the back third of the theatre...slope floor or stadium. Not necessarily the back most row but definitely behind the middle row.
Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 01-14-2015, 02:18 PM:
The Grand Infinity auditoriums have 2:1 ratio screens at 50'x100' according Bill himself.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-14-2015, 02:50 PM:
quote:
Sorry, your claim is just plain false. People, in general tend towards the back third of any auditorium (except the very young). The balcony is enough of a novelty nowadays that people will sit there because they can. And furthermore...if you did a study of what is "most comfortable" for people to watch, you'll find that having the image straight ahead and/or down, it will feel more comfortable because our vision is designed for the horizon and below, not so much above. Typically, the further back and up you go satisfies that.
If your claim were true when the making opens up to Scope from Flat, people would migrate back to once again have the image to say within their field of vision. Or if a curtain opened up to reveal a smaller flat screen, they would migrate forward. The only time I've ever seen that is if the flat screen is very small appearing that people feel the need to not seem so far away.
If you sit so far away that the scope screen is within your field of vision, you have cut down on your "grand sweeping" picture and definitely not "grander" since you will have effectively made it look smaller. If you sit in the same place for scope that you sit for flat with flat filling your vision...THEN will scope seam grander and bigger. If you move back until it just fills your vision, you just made it a cropped version of the flat picture.
I guess we are arguing about two different things. I am saying that most people want to sit where they can see the whole picture comfortably (which you seem to agree with), but your argument is that scope was designed to overfill the field of vision, which I'm not sure is true.
Also my point about the "grand sweeping" picture has nothing to do with field of vision or the size of the picture, it's more to do with the shape of the image. Composition, like I said above.
In my own auditorium I tend to like to sit in the same general area regardless if the picture is scope or flat. The only time I "prefer" my entire field of vision to be filled is when watching a 3-D movie -- I'll sit about 6 or 7 rows closer in that case. But I don't sit any closer for flat or scope.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-14-2015, 03:31 PM:
quote: Geoff Jones
1) How big is that screen?
According to this video, Bill Warren himself mentions it's over a 100ft wide and approximately 50ft tall (Interestingly quite close to the numbers Mike mentioned earlier ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). So if 50ft is about right, it would be about 120ft wide if it's actually in scope format and the image isn't warped in any other way to adjust to the curvature. There obviously will be quite a difference between measuring across the arc and between the edges. Although I doubt it's really a record, it's a BFS (Big Fscking Screen), especially because it's showing normal theatrical releases, not just special "Large Format" productions.
What's also special is that they're using Atmos in combination with a balcony setup, I'm not really sure the system can really handle rooms with balconies all that well.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I guess we are arguing about two different things. I am saying that most people want to sit where they can see the whole picture comfortably (which you seem to agree with), but your argument is that scope was designed to overfill the field of vision, which I'm not sure is true.
While I'm quite sure it was the original intention of the scope formats to fill more of your field of view, I also agree with you that not all movies are created equal, even not those shot in scope.
Personally, I like movies shot to fill a large part of my field of view, that's also why I generally do prefer scope over flat. Also, isn't part of the cinematic experience simply the fact that the screen is so much bigger? So, sitting in the back of a room often totally negates one of the most striking features of movie theaters.
But, my preference certainly is not everyone's preference. While I do prefer to sit about halfway in most auditoriums, I see most people trying to get a seat as far away from the screen as possible. Most people hence tend to "accumulate" in the back third of almost any given cinema auditorium.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-14-2015, 04:12 PM:
quote: Andrew Thomas
The Grand Infinity auditoriums have 2:1 ratio screens at 50'x100' according Bill himself.
Is this published somewhere? That's a terrible idea, especially for a deep curved screen (although I suppose IF he has 4 way masking it wouldn't be as bad). Virtually every movie is scope these days anyway, so why not build the screen at a proper 2.4 ratio? A deep curved screen design like this almost demands it.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-14-2015, 04:35 PM:
How do you do 4-way masking on a deep curved screen this large? While I could come up with a few ways to do it, it's not going to be easy or cheap.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-14-2015, 04:39 PM:
I don't think Warren is too concerned about money. I agree it COULD be done, but why? Side masking is the proper thing to do here.
Sam - this room DID have masking, right? Do we need to buy you a tape measure and send you back? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-14-2015, 06:00 PM:
The side masking wouldn't be a problem...regular track will do it though I would have separate machines for left and right though you could hide the pulleys in the valance area to do a single motor.
As for top and bottom...top isn't hard...use soft goods and string it like you would a waterfall curtain with multiple line sets to a clew and a wench type motor.
For a lower masking (most likely not needed/wanted) I wouldn't go with a conventional side guided truss...there is going to be an awful big moment force trying to tear it apart with the weight of the center. I would again go to a clew/wench type system with multiple telescoping supports that the drapery support bar would be supported by (and connected to).
But, as Brad noted...only side masking should be used on a screen system like this. The deep-curve screen's job is to just keep getting wider and wider until it wraps around you.
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-14-2015, 09:36 PM:
well it wont be a problem for 'Jurassic World' which will have an aspect ratio of 2.1 ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 01-14-2015, 10:43 PM:
Here's a very neat video of screen lighting, curtains, seats, carpet, hallway, marquee, etc etc.
Over $43 million to build.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaAHGq3Wqb0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63yU18X-tgc
I LOVE the etched glass concession menu boards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYbPwBZAlNM
Artwork, marble, lighting, carpet... What a BEAUTIFUL theater. I love you, Bill. You can tell he's just glowing in all his interviews.
No laminate or exposed concrete here! Anywhere!
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-14-2015, 10:50 PM:
I love that they keep saying it has an "old time feel". What is old time for them, 1995? The faux ersatz deco artwork hardly overcomes the industrial mega-plex motif.
Fine if that's what you like, but just leaves me cold.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-14-2015, 11:32 PM:
I have to agree, the art deco is tacky and nothing great. But I'm still not convinced with that curved screen. Warren may have to check his facts, he claims one of his IMAX screens is the largest in North America , I highly doubt his claims.
But Warren does have it right, he knows how to put on a good show, at least with the curtains and laser light thing.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-14-2015, 11:53 PM:
There were some things I liked, some I didn't. I agree with Martin, you can't do "art deco" unless you go all the way with it... some of the decor is deco-ish, but some is just garish and industrial looking. But, it's hard to really tell what the total effect is from the videos because the cuts are so fast.
I don't know what to think about the pre-movie light show. It'll be cool the first few times you see it, but after about four or five times I think I would be all "come on come on come on, just run the damn movie." Plus I have come to hate the song "Wizards In Winter" because it has already been used behind just about every bad home Christmas light show, and now it's being used in this theater. They'd have been better off finding some new song to use for their videos.
I liked the glass-brick design behind the concession counters, very nice. And it's amazing how cushy theater seats are getting. Some of those recliners look nicer than home recliners!
I don't like the eating-in-the-movies concept and never have. How can you lose yourself in a movie when you're trying to cut a steak or find the ketchup for the fries? But, I guess that's what people want.
So, I would give it a mixed review based on just these videos but I'm sure I'd find a lot more to like with an in-person experience, especially in the sound department. No plans to visit Oklahoma but you can bet if we ever get near this place we'll definitely check it out.
Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 01-15-2015, 11:47 AM:
Custom laser projector from Belgium. It probably has that special corrective curve screen lens. America is some times late in getting new tech things. Warren needs to bring his $$ out to San Francisco and build one of these theatres. No tornadoes here but we do have earthquakes. Give some competition to the 2 AMC and 1 Century/Cinemark theatres we have in SF CA. Bring on the curtains/food/drinks and showmanship these circuits don't provide.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-15-2015, 03:07 PM:
When I hear Belgium I think Barco, but Warren is a Christie chain. Anyone know?
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 01-15-2015, 04:39 PM:
Mike keep in mind that video was taken just before Christmas, and that it's not even their video...
Terry L.S.- Tacky??? You're kidding, right? What is your ideal theater? And yes, probably excluding domes, he has the two largest and highest grossing IMAX screens in North America.
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 01-15-2015, 05:15 PM:
quote: Brad Miller
Sam - this room DID have masking, right?
Yes.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-15-2015, 06:26 PM:
quote: Buck Wilson
Mike keep in mind that video was taken just before Christmas, and that it's not even their video...
Right, I'm sure they're using different music now. But I still wonder if "regulars" will get tired of the light show after they've seen it a few times. I think I would. Plus, for a place that's trying to go for an 'old time feel' it seems a little out of place.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-15-2015, 06:36 PM:
When I used to frequent the old "Villa Theatre", in Salt Lake City, there were some flat movies shown on that deep curved Cinerama screen.
They only had side maskings being a common height screen and flat presentations coming from those "JJ's", with Ashcrafts SuperCorelites, with properly cut aperture plates was still excellent.
When the dumped the "JJ's" for a Norelco AA-2 and an SLH lamphouse, is when presentation quality was reduced.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-15-2015, 06:38 PM:
quote: Buck Wilson
Terry L.S.- Tacky??? You're kidding, right? What is your ideal theater? And yes, probably excluding domes, he has the two largest and highest grossing IMAX screens in North America.
Terry is predictably up to his usual nonsense. He has to dump all over Bill Warren's newest theater since it doesn't pimp the IMAX brand and boasts 2 screens not just with Dolby Atmos, but with Atmos apparently wired up in its maximum configuration of speakers & amplifiers.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 01-15-2015, 06:41 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Right, I'm sure they're using different music now. But I still wonder if "regulars" will get tired of the light show after they've seen it a few times. I think I would. Plus, for a place that's trying to go for an 'old time feel' it seems a little out of place.
That's a pretty good point. I'd be surprised if the whole intermission was filled with it. I'd wager that it's just 5 minutes prior to the show, or intermittent, or something along those lines. Perhaps the colors just slowly change with unrelated muzak in the background until the big curtain opening thing.
Sam?
quote: Bobby Henderson
Terry is predictably up to his usual nonsense. He has to dump all over Bill Warren's newest theater since it doesn't pimp the IMAX brand and boasts 2 screens not just with Dolby Atmos, but with Atmos apparently wired up in its maximum configuration of speakers & amplifiers.
You're right. It just doesn't get any worse than that. Atmos is as tacky as it gets.
Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 01-15-2015, 07:32 PM:
I agree with Mike Im not a fan of the whole eating dinner and watching a movie thing. I love to eat so when I do all Im concentrating on is my food. I could never get lost in a movie while trying to eat dinner let alone waiters walking all around. I do love this theater though. Ill visit it for the main Grand Infinity theater. I absolutely love all his other theaters in Wichita and Moore so Im sure Im gunna really enjoy this one. The curtains alone are worth it lol.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-15-2015, 08:50 PM:
quote: Buck Wilson
And yes, probably excluding domes, he has the two largest and highest grossing IMAX screens in North America.
Probably Buck, tell us Buck...I think Warren is full of horseshit and that screen is not the size of a basketball court. As for Warren having the largest IMAX screen, that is not possible, his IMAX screens are digital and the current IMAX Xenon setup will max out at around 70 feet. Seeing how the Lincoln Square cannot fill the width of their IMAX 15/70 screen due to the limitation of Xenons IMAX Digital, his screen is one of the larger digital IMAX screen in North America, not the largest. I think he bullshits his numbers and nobody has called him on it. And yes the lobby looks tacky to me. His curtains are nice I must say but the curve looks stupid even he has a patent for it ![[Moon]](graemlins/moon.gif)
quote: Jarod Reddig
I agree with Mike Im not a fan of the whole eating dinner and watching a movie thing. I love to eat so when I do all Im concentrating on is my food. I could never get lost in a movie while trying to eat dinner let alone waiters walking all around. I do love this theater though. Ill visit it
I don't understand the dinner and a movie thing either, but I guess some moviegoers do not get lost in the movie or need to hear every line of dialog like others do. I have always wondered as to how dark the cinema is while the food is being eaten.
Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 01-15-2015, 09:09 PM:
I like the decor of the lobby though I have to agree that it really isn't "old timey feeling", the only thing I found really tacky is the light show. I think its a bit overdone, raise the curtains and have that level of showmanship but I bought tickets to a movie theater, not a trans-siberian orchestra rock show (I was honestly expecting some pyrotechnics).
It's nice that it shows that he cares though, overall looks like a classy place, just need to cut that light show, hopefully it was just for the preview events.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 01-15-2015, 09:35 PM:
I'm not a HUGE fan of the eat-in concept, but I do tend to eat in them. I just show up half an hour early if I plan on eating so I can get settled in and well into my meal by the time the movie starts, then just pick at the remainder for the rest of the movie.
Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 01-15-2015, 09:42 PM:
So, Buck, care to share where you get the data proving he has the highest-grossing IMAX screens in the country? My Rentrak account doesn't agree with your assessment.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 01-15-2015, 10:28 PM:
Can't say I have hard-and-fast facts. Just googled "highest grossing imax" and "largest imax" and the Broken Arrow Warren; Moore, OK Warren; and one of the Wichita KS Warren theaters are all over those results. Couldn't find any numbers OR anyone disputing those claims though....
Why don't you share the real facts?
Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 01-15-2015, 11:49 PM:
The only thing I can find to substatiate his claim is a wikipedia article which has a news article as the source. The news article states "Almost 7,000 patrons spent a little more than $90,000 last weekend at Bill Warren's west Wichita IMAX theater, making it the top performing IMAX in North America"
It sounds like for one weekend they were the busiest and kind of rode that fame for a bit including it being on their wikipedia page. However this was their brand new theater opening and it was competing against theaters that had opened tron legacy 3 weeks prior.
Then again, he's not the first person to twist numbers to be a litle more favorable for marketing, so I can't really fault him for it.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-16-2015, 06:05 AM:
quote: Brad Miller
When I hear Belgium I think Barco, but Warren is a Christie chain. Anyone know?
Shouldn't you think beer, french fries and chocolate? According to Bobby Henderson in this topic:
quote:
I'm pretty sure, but not absolutely certain, the projection systems for the two Grand Infinity auditoriums at the Broken Arrow Warren theater opening next week in Broken Arrow, OK are Christie 6P laser models.
Maybe Bobby knows the definite answer by now? Is it an Belgian import or "Made in the U.S. of A."?
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
tacky to me. His curtains are nice I must say but the curve looks stupid even he has a patent for it
I don't think Bill Warren deserves so much "hate". Personally, for a place that's essentially a large, 18-screen multiplex, this thing looks awesome. Instead of putting his money into a bigger house, bigger boat or fleet of luxury cars, he actually created something for the public. Since this place is not really around the corner, my judgements are based on the series of YouTube movies and on-line pictures available.
The place might not be an authentic, old cinema, the "ersatz Art Deco" might be faux and the theming might not be up to the standards of the best Disney theme parks... but still, if I had to choose between the run-of-the-mill multiplex down the street or one of his places, the choice would be rather easy.
I do like the curtain light show, but I think it would make a bigger and more sustained impact, if it wasn't as much "in your face". So, keep it down to just a short sequence just before opening the curtain. I don't think you do need special music, or try to make the music blend in better with the music that was running before the show and a little less dramatic. Often, a little less is a whole lot more.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Probably Buck, tell us Buck...I think Warren is full of horseshit and that screen is not the size of a basketball court.
A basket ball court has a surface of about 4700 square feet. While that's certainly a big screen, it's not like it has never been done before.
And besides all the marketing fluff, you read stuff like the "biggest noodle dryer between bumfuck and nowhere" every time, everywhere. It's also somewhat understandable somebody is trying to advertise his multimillion dollar investment with strong, subjective arguments.
quote: Manny Montes
The only thing I can find to substatiate his claim is a wikipedia article which has a news article as the source. The news article states "Almost 7,000 patrons spent a little more than $90,000 last weekend at Bill Warren's west Wichita IMAX theater, making it the top performing IMAX in North America"
Unfortunately, the references for this paragraph are no good. One is leading back to the Warren Theaters website, not really an unbiased source and the other one leads straight to a GoDaddy catch page.
Still, this guy opened a few major projects in just a few years time. So, I guess the numbers seem to work out for him until now.
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 01-16-2015, 07:04 AM:
What I can tell you about Warren's IMAX claims is that they were built WAY out of spec size wise, and it took some convincing the IMAX folks to allow that. As I noted in my "Tron: Legacy" review, the picture suffers accordingly.
As for those actually complaining about the Art Deco decor, please go back to your purple Cinemarks and burnt sienna Carmikes and resume your soulless existence.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-16-2015, 08:07 AM:
quote: Manny Montes
Then again, he's not the first person to twist numbers to be a litle more favorable for marketing, so I can't really fault him for it.
No, he isn't the first person to twist numbers, I believe Warren also claimed that the Broken Arrow theater was the first theater in North America to have laser projection. We now know that is not true as the Seattle Cinerama and the Cineplex Scotiabank beat Warren to the laser debut.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-16-2015, 08:28 AM:
quote: Sam Graham
As for those actually complaining about the Art Deco decor, please go back to your purple Cinemarks and burnt sienna Carmikes and resume your soulless existence.
The alternative to Bad is not Worse
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-16-2015, 10:14 AM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
No, he isn't the first person to twist numbers, I believe Warren also claimed that the Broken Arrow theater was the first theater in North America to have laser projection. We now know that is not true as the Seattle Cinerama and the Cineplex Scotiabank beat Warren to the laser debut.
Well, do we know if he, the man, himself claimed this? It was featured in a press release put out by THX. Many of the "facts" cited by news reports come from those kind of PR releases.
Anyway, whether those rather unimportant marketing claims are valid or not, are of no importance to the actual quality of the place itself.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-16-2015, 10:52 AM:
Warren's claims of having the nation's "first and only" 4K laser projection systems were printed big on their web site. As for who was really first to buy and/or install their laser projectors that's pretty unclear now.
It's funny that Terry is whining so much about Warren Theaters bending the truth in their marketing. Terry doesn't mind at all when the lying and misleading is coming from IMAX.
One thing we do know is IMAX isn't rolling out their new laser projectors in the form of a final, ready to install product. The Bullock Texas State History Museum IMAX theater just removed their 15/70mm film-based system and installed a pair of plain old 2K DLP projectors and a smaller 65' screen. And they call it "progress."
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-16-2015, 11:45 AM:
quote: Buck Wilson
I'd wager that it's just 5 minutes prior to the show, or intermittent, or something along those lines. Perhaps the colors just slowly change with unrelated muzak in the background until the big curtain opening thing.
The one video says "Light show before every movie!" But I wonder (1) How long the light show is...is it a full song or a shorter thing? and (2) Is it on all screens or just the gigantic basketball court sized ones?
I guess if I was in charge of that light show, I would edit my preferred tune down to say 45 seconds. That way people wouldn't get tired of it or roll their eyes at it and you wouldn't need to use all your "effects" for every performance. "Leave'em wanting more" is a good rule to follow in showbiz.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-16-2015, 01:10 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Warren's claims of having the nation's "first and only" 4K laser projection systems were printed big on their web site. As for who was really first to buy and/or install their laser projectors that's pretty unclear now.
It's really just nitpicking, but I guess what matters most is when it opened to the public. The Seattle Cinerama reopened on November 20 last year with The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1. That's about a month earlier than both of Warren's Grand Infinity auditoriums.
Maybe, if this setup is actually a Barco setup, they could still claim the first Barco laser deployment in North America...
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-17-2015, 11:32 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
The one video says "Light show before every movie!" But I wonder (1) How long the light show is...is it a full song or a shorter thing? and (2) Is it on all screens or just the gigantic basketball court sized ones?
I would hope the voice over and silly laser show along with the current was just for the IMAX and Grand Infinity screens, to do that for every single show seems like overkill and the novelty wears off. I wonder if the music also changes from time to time.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-17-2015, 12:33 PM:
Well I'm SURE the music must change....I really doubt they'd play "Wizards In Winter" year round.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2