This is topic IMAX,..no, Giant Screen...no, Ultrascreen!!! in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=000269
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-15-2001, 12:10 PM:
Well, the local commercial Imax (at a Marcus theatre) has temporarily stopped showing large format films. They ran PEARL HARBOR under the name A GIANT SCREEN EXPERIENCE, and today they opened TOMB RAIDER with the ULTRASCREEN name. I believe this is a name other Marcus theatres use for large screens in conventional settings. There was also a THX logo on the line with ULTRASCREEN, but I don't really think the IMAX room is THX certified. They may have just moved this logo over from some of their other sites. There are 6 other THX certified rooms at this location.
I've been told they will run 35mm in there for most of the summer. I'm not surprised, as the last two large format films I saw in there had only my family and me as customers! I've had 4 "private screenings" there over the years.
Mark Lensenmayer
------------------
"As a moral to young men who come down to the city, don't go round breaking people's tambourines."
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-15-2001, 02:52 PM:
I'm curious -- When they run standard 35mm flat or scope movies in the IMAX auditorium, do they show the movie in the correct aspect ratio and mask the screen appropriately? I don't imagine a 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 movie projected, centered on a huge 4:3 screen looking very good.
Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 06-15-2001, 05:11 PM:
Evans, I'm not sure if all IMAX theaters do it the same way, but the Sony Metreon in San Francisco has a practice of just showing the 2.39:1 image in the middle of the screen without any masking. There is a lot of empty space above and below the picture. They don't try to fill the entire width of the screen, so there is a little bit of empty space on the sides as well. Once the lights go down, the theater is dark enough so that the empty parts of the screen are not distracting. (They do a good job at keeping stray light off the screen.)
The aspect ratio seems to be correct. In fact, since there is no chance of masking cutting off part of the picture, I'd say you're actually better guaranteed of a correct aspect ratio with that type of setup than in a regular theater.
I don't know what wattage of lamp they are using, but the image is pretty bright. Not the brightest I've ever seen, but bright enough to where I won't complain. Overall, it's actually a very nice presentation.
Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 06-15-2001, 05:17 PM:
A flat movie could probably be run on an IMAX screen if it is run with an Academy Frame aperature plate and the film has been shot full frame with no gaffs in the picture. The ratio should be pretty darn close to the IMAX screen.------------------
Chris Duvall
General Manager
Regal Cinemas Colonnade14
Las Vegas, NV
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-15-2001, 05:24 PM:
I hope you are not sujesting filling the whole IMAX screen 35mm will not withstand that much magnification
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-15-2001, 06:04 PM:
You wouldn't be able to get enough light to the screen without toasting your 35mm print. Thos screens should be used for one thing and one thing only that is an Imax presentation. Now if you were able to obtain a print of a film in 70mm It might work better. But we know where the industry stands on that.
Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 06-16-2001, 04:05 AM:
Oops, 
I did fail to remember that part...I guess you would need an incredible amount of light to spread over an IMAX screen. Anyhoo, I never worked with IMAX. I did however had the chance to work with 70mm for a short bit for the remainder of the run of Aliens in 1986. God, I hated moving that print. ------------------
Chris Duvall
General Manager
Regal Cinemas Colonnade14
Las Vegas, NV
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-16-2001, 10:23 AM:
They project 35mm at the Imax here in bradford. They actually show 35mm adverts before an imax feature. Just a small 1.85:1 image centered on the screen. I went recently and noticed that that the edges of the image badly faded, and also the horizontal curve of the screen can be noticed. They also sometimes show 35mm features in there. They were running "Best in Show" in there a while back and they have had some bollywood screenings in there (probably 35mm).
------------------
------------------
Michael Brown
Bradford Student Cinema
www.bradfordstudentcinema.co.uk
Posted by John Scott (Member # 520) on 06-16-2001, 02:44 PM:
Mark --Yes for the Summer I believe Marcus is planning on showing conventional 35MM prints on their 2 Imax screens under the ULTRASCREEN banner (They have 2 other ULTRASCREENS in Milwaukee and Madison that only show 35MM). Both of the IMAX theatres (Columbus and Addison) have separate 35MM projectors for this capability.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-16-2001, 03:36 PM:
Of the IMAX theatres I have delt with that also have conventional 35 (and 5/70) cabability....only a portion of the IMAX screen is used and the 35/70 pictures are in their proper ratio.I'm doing one in TN next month and the 35 Scope picture will be over 80 feet wide though not as wide as the screen. The 70mm picture will almost fill the width of the screen though. For Flat, not even close in either direction...the 1.85 and Scope pictures will have similar heights. We will be using 7000 watt lamps. For an example of the system, check out the Indianapolis IMAX 3-D pictures here is the gallery. The setup will be quite similar (and proven viable!).
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-16-2001, 03:57 PM:
If you look at the pictures of Ontario Place Cinesphere you will see how we installed 2 dp70's one on each side of the IMAX with 7K Ultra80's
THe screen is 84x60'
the cs image is 79' wide
the 1.66 flat is 70' wide
and 70mm is 82' wide
The CP200 feeds the sonics system with extra amps and speakers for Lc and Rc as well as an array of JBL surrounds
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 06-16-2001, 08:20 PM:
Inside.com has this to say about it:
http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=33076&pod_id=10 What I want to know is (and I think this question may have been posed once before) what the heck are they doing to "enhance" these prints? Modified for longer throws? Oh, come on ...
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-17-2001, 09:36 AM:
Didn't the IWERKS 3d theatre at Ontario Mills be the first to use the name UltraScreen Theatre and if my memory is right there was a little R in a cicle after it.
Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 06-17-2001, 10:42 AM:
It sounds like in the article that the print is being transfered to IMAX stock film to run on the IMAX projectors. I just get the feeling that the may end up looking grainy from getting blown up from 35mm unless the original masters of the movie were shot at 70mm. Then again, who am I to know this? This sounds like a JP question.------------------
Chris Duvall
General Manager
Regal Cinemas Colonnade14
Las Vegas, NV
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 06-17-2001, 11:01 AM:
The impression I got from the article was that they were using a different printing process on the "enhanced" prints to make them look better. Or maybe they're just printing a bunch of "answer prints" instead of using the dupe neg. There's absolutely no way that they're blowing them up to 15/70.<rant>
This brings me to another big gripe of mine. These large format theaters should be installing 5/70 equipment in their booths, not these damn Christies. If the studios want to spend money "enhancing" prints, make their "enhanced" prints 70mm blowups and start distributing 70mm again. I mean, if you're gonna do multiple inventories anyway, you might as well do it right.
</rant>
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-17-2001, 11:14 AM:
hmmmmmmmmm the artical states that the prints are modified to accomidate the longer throw to the screen. Can anyone tell me do these prints have the analog sound track on them. Could they have posably filled the entire four perf area with picture and just rely on the dolby digital and sdds soundtracks.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-17-2001, 12:06 PM:
The current crop of 35mm "IMAX THEATRE PRINTS" are nothing more than the old Drive In prints of the past. Printed about 1 stop lighter.
If they really cared about quality they would reprint on 70mm stock 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 06-17-2001, 02:37 PM:
Yes, Gordon, the Ultrascreen Theatre in Ontario, CA. It looks like San Bernardino County owns the theatre and they also have a trademark registered for using the "Ultrascreen" name in association with a theatre. Registration number 2403292. Oooooo, Busted! Their website seems to be down this weekend, though. www.ultrascreen.com
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 06-20-2001, 06:26 AM:
Well, in today's episode of NAME THAT SCREEN, We find that the phrase "UltraScreen in THX" has been replaced with "Giant Screen Experience". Mark Lensenmayer
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 06-20-2001, 10:07 AM:
While I think that Imax would have some interest in how this infringes on their "The IMAX Experience" trademark, I think the Giant Screen Theater Association would be even more concerned. With "giant screen" used commonly to describe large format (8/70 and 15/70) theaters, a 35mm presentation is far from a "giant screen experience". But you guys already know that.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-20-2001, 12:18 PM:
If a print "enhanced" for projection on a huge screen simply means printing it lighter to compensate for low screen luminance, it really won't look good. Reducing the printer exposure will make the shadow areas less dense and "milky", make the colors desaturate, make the flesh tones pasty, and lose highlight detail. The largest lamp practicable for 35mm is 7000 watts. Size the image to obtain proper screen luminance (at least 12 footlamberts), and don't count on a lighter print to allow a lower luminance and look good.
I agree that a 5-perf 70mm blow-up would be much better suited to filling a huge screen, as Gordon has done on numerous occasions at the Cinesphere IMAX theatre at Ontario Place in Toronto.
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 06-29-2001, 04:51 PM:
Just a note I found about the UltraScreen Theatre in Ontario, CA: According to the LA Times, "In November 1999 the 440-seat UltraScreen Theatre at Ontario Mills closed its doors because it was losing $130,000 a month."
And now, of course Edwards wants to dump all six of their Imax theatres, including the one in Ontario.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-29-2001, 05:03 PM:
The UltraScreen was a twin machine Iwerks 1570 booth and it was too bad that the comercial Edwards theatre drove the institutional theatre under and then Edwards says well it didn't work so lets take our marbles and go home leaving nothing
I wonder who bought the Iwerks machines as they were up for sale
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 02-19-2002, 05:51 PM:
For the re-release of Beauty and the Beast, newspaper ads and the picture's website announce it is "Exclusively in IMAX and Giant Screen Theatres".
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-19-2002, 06:29 PM:
Marcus stopping their Imax runs doesn't surprise me a bit. I'm quite sure they're finding out that Imax is simlpy overkill, and way too much overexpense in a plex sort of situation. With what Imax charges it could never work. I know that Edwards bailed out of Imax all together, and Regal is doing the same. With Imax's rediclous expenses I think you'll see more and more of these sites get converted to 70mm 8 perfwhich is what they should ahve been in the forst place anyway. In these circumstances someone at the chains didn't do their homework very well. I can summise that Marcus is up to exactly what Edwards and Regal did. The Imax will come out and the 8 operf will go in, and all the while they will keep running regular films inside that expensive piece of real estate that they still have to pay for.
Personally, I like Imax films alot, but the company has backed themselves into a corner with an ever tightening nuce around their neck. Although Gord will tell U different. In Salt Lake City we have the "Super Screen" but there's nothing so super about it.
Mark @ Old GTS
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-19-2002, 07:01 PM:
According to the information posted today on 1570.com IMAX and Regal have settled (pending bankrupcy court approval) to pay off the outstanding balances in a partial lump sum payment and keep the theatres open as IMAX theatres sorry 
no joy in 8 perf land today 15 70 rules
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-19-2002, 09:04 PM:
15/70 may rule till the bankruptcy court gets ahold of it(if thats true). However, No bankruptcy court would allow them to keep it as it hasn't made them a dimes profit.
Mark @ Home
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-19-2002, 10:59 PM:
As they say about muscle cars; "There's no replacement for displacement." and the same is true of image quality.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-19-2002, 11:34 PM:
Hey John,
Aren't U guys running the Maverick? Hows it going? Would U consider it a Crowning Achievement?
Mark @ Home
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-20-2002, 02:24 AM:
Mark: The Maverick (both of them) are installed and are sorta running. The company is now (again) out of biz. Gosh, you'd think that those guys would give up and do something reliable like 870... And, yes Mark, I would consider it a "Crowning Achievement"....I would be VERY concerned about my personal safety if I was near a running Maverick projector for fear of being "crowned!" and injured as it blew up and spued shattered parts all over. It IS scarey!!!!! I would also buy stock and invest in a roller bearing company! I will email Brad pics of the projector for posting.
Also, I challenge ANYONE to tell the difference between a Kodak (Yea! KodaK FILMS!!!!!)70mm print of a 870 or a 1570 presentation. I have done blind tests at some of the Large Format gatherings all over the world over the years and the difference is not noticeable. As a matter of fact, alot of 1570 releases are filmed in the 870 format and blown-up to 1570. The tests were done many times and on screens up to 80ft wide. Granted if your screen is over 80, YOU might be able to tell the difference with a criticle eye if you knew. So EXCUSE ME if I choke everytime some uniformed person mentions "IMAX" 1570 instead of "Large Format" which includes Iwerks 1570 and 870 (and others). (Gordon, don't give me any sh!t)
Hmmmm.... now that I have totally lost my thought train, I just want to wish everyone a merry christmas and a happy new year. J/K!!!!!
>>> Phil
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-20-2002, 04:02 AM:
Prints timed (light adjusted printing) to a specific venue is quite common. I have printed many prints, but in general, Large Format prints, both 1570 and 870, 2D, are printed to a 10 fL spec.... which is the "desireable" target range for LF. There is NO loss of contrast or color if printed and lit correctly since the print density is specifically adjusted for this light intensity.
>>> Phil
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-20-2002, 08:22 AM:
Phil,
Trust me Gord WILL give you all kinds of sh!t now that you've given it all away! Not only is it more practical to shoot in 8/70 but it also saves a ton of $$ in film stock and lab costs. If done right even ord would never know the true format it was filmed in. I love Kodak films but things would be even better if they shot with Fiju Velvia 
. I agree with you that the 8/70 format can look great when done right when done right and on a system that is designed right. The ONLY difference I've seen between the two formats is on sceen light level. The 8/70 image is never as bright and I think this can be attributed to most systems using a matte white screen, and of course the smaller hole letteing less light through. If you want to get rich quick, you need to come out with an on-site 8/70 screen coating service similar to what the big boys have......
Mark @ Homejustleavingtogotowork
Posted by Owen Shave (Member # 1156) on 02-20-2002, 10:02 AM:
As I mentioned in a previous posting our largest 35mm screen is only 5m shy of the width of our imax screen (85 feet). so I guess without the technical restraints, a 35mm presentation on our Imax screen probably wouldn't look a whole lot different to that on our largest screen. Except of course the large area of the screen above and below the projected image that would be left un-untilized. Our guests would be used to this however as we have no (yes, no) masking in *any* of our screens.. some kind of costcutting exercise. it doesnt really matter but when 1.85:1 ratio films are shown on our largest screens it really doesn't look too good. both Monsters Inc. and A.I. had some serious visible curvature on the corners of the picture showing.
ah well.
Owen
Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 02-20-2002, 12:16 PM:
I'm confused. What is the difference between IMAX and "other Giant Screen theaters"??? And what is (or should I say "was"?) Ultrascreen?
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 02-20-2002, 01:14 PM:
Imax is the registered trademark of the Imax corporation. You can simulate Imax by having a room about the same shape and running large format film either in the 15/70mm format sideways or the 8/70mm format verticaly. But if you haven't licenced the name and the equipment from Imax, you have to call it something else.I know, let's call it Ultrascreen!
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-20-2002, 01:19 PM:
Mark said: "I love Kodak films but things would be even better if they shot with Fiju Velvia."VELVIA is a reversal film that is NOT well suited to the negative-positive duplicating system used to make movies, except when a unique "look" is desired.
Kodak does have a camera original reversal film specifically designed for filmmakers desiring that contrasty, high color saturation "look":
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/reversal/5285.shtml
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-20-2002, 05:55 PM:
"Hey John, Aren't U guys running the Maverick? Hows it going? Would U consider it a Crowning Achievement?"Yuk, yuk! No, they are not out of business, but they have fallen on hard times. But they still are supporting us, including regular preventive maintaince - not just mailing us parts! Someone in the another posting said the projector had a " 'stand back' kind of rattleness" which is very true. There's a big blast of air for each frame. Imagine the sound and loudness of a 22cal gun going off. Now imagine that at 24 fps.
We're running the 15/70 Beauty/Beast at two locations, and doing very well with both the projector and the business. There was, ah.... some concerns at first, but no problems so far! It is cool to go right up to the screen (or really, down into the pit!) and not see any grain.
Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 02-20-2002, 06:12 PM:
In Bradford at the Imax there, they run 35 and 70 on the Imax screen but only in sensible size pictures.
I saw 'Lawrence of arabia' ther in the 80's and it look great.
The Imax has been upgraded to 3D with twin SR projectors, and now watching a 2D film, the brightness does fall away at the sides, i think this is due to the silvered screen now, gives the effect of a badly focus 35mm projector xenon.
The best 3D imax i've seen is Imax SOLIDO, the dome screen version of 3D. Maybe because of the dome, the brightness fallof at the edges isn't noticable?If the process of blowing up 35mm to imax size takes oof, it could create a come back for 70mm film in regualar cinemas??
We can all Hope!!
Darren
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-20-2002, 06:51 PM:
"Ultrascreen" was the name of a now defunct 1570 3D theater in Ontario, California. The theater owner, San Bernardino County, owns the trademark.>>>Phil
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 02-20-2002, 07:18 PM:
Phil Hill said, ""Ultrascreen" was the name of a now defunct 1570 3D theater in Ontario, California. The theater owner, San Bernardino County, owns the trademark."UltraScreen (note location of capital letters) is also used by Marcus Cinemas at a couple of sites for large screen (about 75', I believe) 35mm auditoriums. One is WesTown Cinemas in Waukesha WI, and also a couple of more. Some of the Marcus folks around here can tell us for sure.
BTW, Marcus has dropped the 9:00 show of BATB at both of their Imax theatres, and is showing standard 35mm features (Brotherhood of the Wolf at Addison, I am Sam (until this weekend, then Rollerball) in Columbus.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-20-2002, 07:35 PM:
Marcus bought the rights to the trademark this past August.>>> Phil
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-21-2002, 09:47 AM:
John said
"Yuk, yuk! No, they are not out of business, but they have fallen on hard times. But they still are supporting us, including regular preventive maintaince - not just mailing us parts!"I think this is just another example of the hard times in general that all of the LF industry has been going through. Lets face it, except for an ultra high traffic plex situation a 15/70 system could never turn a profit that would justify its great expense.
Mark @ Old GTS
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-21-2002, 10:40 AM:
Most museums and institutions rely on the income generated by there large format theatres as a major revune base. In fact most of the institutions are not hurting compared to the plexs with large format add ons
Also Mark the movie Alaska was on Fuji Stock (as they were one of the backers of the film)
Also all non 3d IMAX theatres are matte screens
And the definition and detail in an 8 perf will never be as great as 15 perf on the same sized screen. Grain will also appear larger
Sorry as they say Size does matter
An interesting test I saw once was a split screen side by side and the 1570 beat the 870 handsdown
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-22-2002, 10:19 PM:
Again the film size isn't what draws the audience, its the screen size and film content.
Mark @ Home
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-23-2002, 02:47 PM:
Sorry Mark the experience draws the audience in the large format world and there are more 1570 films right now than there are theatres to show them
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-23-2002, 06:43 PM:
The average large screen audience, which averages under age 12 cause most of them are in museums, wouldn't know the difference between Super 8 and 15/70. Jeez, give me a break!
Mark @ Home
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-23-2002, 08:30 PM:
People may not know Super 8 from 1570 at a technical level, but they know an extraordinarily-good presentation when they see it.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-24-2002, 12:31 AM:
Jeez, it's nice just to be an observer in a bickering match for once.Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-24-2002, 12:54 AM:
Good presentation or "showmanship" has *nothing* to do with format. A kid with his super8 showing films at home can present a great show because he has the savvy to do so. By the same token, a large format theater can present crap because of inept people calling the shots.From what I've seen, it seems that most patrons don't really care about format, but size. The fact that many large format (1570 and 870) theaters are making big profits from showing 35mm prints with grain as big as a house bear this out. It's also very interesting that when one drops the buzz-word, DIGITAL, that people automatically say it's better...whether or not that is true has alot to do with the begining of my post.... showmanship!
Bottom line... Size DOES matter...Ummm... screen size, and content. (Not format)
>>> Phil
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-24-2002, 01:00 AM:
But Steve, IMAX theaters don't run with 2 projector changeovers. Surely you can at least bicker about that, right?
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 02-24-2002, 01:15 AM:
Uh ... I'm running Beauty and the Beast on an Imax SR system with a changeover between projectors about 51 minutes into the show.But I do use those evil platters! 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-24-2002, 09:19 AM:
Yea, they did the same in Bosie when they ran Fantasia 2. Its SR stuff there as well, but unfortunately now closed down for good. Dave there is a guy's web site posted someplace on this site that can give super 8 presentations as good as the big boys can.....
Mark @ Home
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-24-2002, 09:21 PM:
Adam, IMAX covers up the platter name with "Reel Units" and now the infamous QTRU (quick turn reel unit)Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 02-25-2002, 06:19 PM:
Posted by Jeff Leyland (Member # 1092) on 02-26-2002, 07:12 PM:
On Boxoffice's news page today, there is an article about Regal keeping its IMAX screens.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-27-2002, 08:44 AM:
You have to remember that news is 3 months old by the time U get it.
Mark @ NEW GTS
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 04-27-2002, 12:45 PM:
ESPN's Ultimate X: The Movie opens 5/10 "Exclusively in IMAX Theatres and Large Format Cinemas Worldwide".
Posted by Chris Tyson (Member # 992) on 04-27-2002, 04:02 PM:
Hello everyone, I've been a follower of this site for awhile and haven't ever posted yet as you can see. I just had post this time though. I'm a projectionist at the IMAX in Branson, MO and we've been showing 35mm features on our screen for about 4 years now. It is a little grainy, but the DTS and Sonics sound system makes up for that. It's hard for us to get first run films cause we only show the 35's at night. We recently added a 3-plex to the complex to get more first runs and add more variety. Our theater holds 534 people and the customers really seem to like coming. If you've never seen a movie like Saving Private Ryan on an IMAX it's really awesome. Oh, Thanks for all the "Tips" on the site, they've really helped. ------------------
Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 04-27-2002, 05:50 PM:
Welcome Chris , well I wish we had our IMAX still , as I was in Hawaii and was going to take my kids to see "Beauty and the Beast" but we had it showing in Auckland and thought I would wait ,but when I get back it closes 
------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.
Posted by Jan Hackett (Member # 1231) on 04-28-2002, 10:02 AM:
We licensed Iwerks name for our 8:70 screen."Extreme Screen"
------------------
Jan Hackett
Theater Operations Manager
Extreme Screen Dynatheater
NM Museum of Natural History Foundation
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-28-2002, 12:04 PM:
Ultimate X is just a 40 minute music video glorifying the silly things adrenaline junkies do. And there's hardly any large format origination in it anyway. This will definately be a waste of auditorium time that I could use for a film that will sell out.Oh, wait, UX has nothing to do with this thread. Never mind.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-30-2002, 09:02 PM:
IMAX ... no, Giant Screen ... no, Ultrascreen!!! ... no, IMAX!!!It was announced earlier today that IMAX and Regal have come to terms on the former Edwards locations that were converted from IMAX to 8/70.
Four of the six Edwards locations and the one UA location now under the Regal banner will be converted back to IMAX equipment. The four Edwards locations are in Irvine, Ontario, and Valencia, California; Houston, Texas, and the UA location is in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 10-31-2002, 02:31 AM:
This has to be a coup for IMAX. It seems to have had a positive effect on their shares.
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 10-31-2002, 04:25 PM:
According to Variety, Imax is now the exclusive large-screen format for Regal/Edwards/UA.This comes in time for Star Wars Episode 2 to become Attack of the Clones: The Imax Experience.