This is topic 'The Maze Runner' will be shown in three-screen panoramic format 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=002830
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-01-2014, 09:01 PM:
The Maze Runner will be first movie presented in new panoramic Escape theater format
Panoramic films and theaters equipped to show them have come and gone over the years, but new panoramic screening technology unveiled earlier in 2014 will debut with the upcoming film The Maze Runner in September.
Digital cinema projector company Barco is hoping its three-screen “Escape” theater configuration will be the next big trend for movie houses, and the technology will gets its first test September 19 when 20th Century Fox premieres The Maze Runner – about a group of teenagers who find themselves trapped in a massive maze — in Escape-enabled theaters. The technology uses three digital cinema projectors and a trio of screens arranged with the primary screen front and center with two angled screens on either side of it in order to create a panoramic presentation.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, the decision to present The Maze Runner in the Escape format was made after the film had finished shooting, so the center screen will show the film as it was shot and the side screens will be extensions of the primary scene — extending the walls of the maze around the audience, for example — created using digitally rendered effects. The Maze Runner will be the first film screened for the general public after being specially prepped for this theater configuration.
On the tech side, it’s worth noting that the method for bringing all of the primary and panoramic imagery together into a cohesive film was built using a Crytek gaming engine to render the final product. The studio is currently experimenting with using multi-camera setups to film movies with the three-screen Escape configuration in mind, as well as testing previously released films in the panoramic format.
“We did a test with The Devil’s Double (released in 2011), and now we are discussing the possibility of a re-release of that movie in the Escape format,” said Ted Schilowitz, Barco’s “CinemaVangelist” who also happens to work at Fox. Schilowitz indicated that, since the format is still so new, the production costs associated with filming a movie for this configuration have yet to be determined.
Currently, there are five theater locations equipped with the Escape configuration: Cinemark 18 and XD at the Promenade at Howard Hughes Center in Los Angeles; Cinemark Paradise 24 and XD in Davie, Florida.; Cinemark West Plano and XD in Plano, Texas; Cinemark at Seven Bridges and Imax in Woodridge, Illinois; and Cinemark Redwood Downtown and XD in Redwood City, California. Ticket prices for the Escape screenings of The Maze Runner will reportedly be set by each theater.
Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/maze-runner-will-first-movie-presented-new-panoramic-escape-theater-format/#ixzz3C7 Tah8OP
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook
'The Maze Runner' will be shown in three-screen panoramic format
Some movies are just too big for the big screen. That’s the thinking behind Escape, a three-screen digital panoramic setup that audiences will be able to experience for the first time in showings of The Maze Runner starting on Sept. 19, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
Escape, developed by Barco, is essentially a modernized, digital update of Cinerama—a widescreen format popularized in the 1950s that had three 35mm projectors simultaneously playing a single movie on a massive, 146-degree screen. It was a problematic, expensive format that was ultimately phased out (though some Cinerama screens are still up and running in the U.S.). Escape relies on digital technology, though, and can avoid many of the headaches that Cinerama faced.
Ideally, movies will be produced and shot specifically for Escape, and technologies to support this format are currently in the testing phase. The Maze Runner, however, is more of an experiment and was simply formatted to fit the three screens. According to THR, the center screen will show the film and the side screens will display expanded images of the shot, rendered with VFX.
Escape theaters in the U.S. include the Cinemark 18 & XD at the Promenade at Howard Hughes Center in Los Angeles; Cinemark Paradise 24 & XD in Davie, Fla.; Cinemark West Plano & XD in Plano, Texas; Cinemark @ Seven Bridges and Imax in Woodridge, Ill.; and Cinemark’s Redwood Downtown & XD in Redwood City, Calif. Ticket prices, the report says, will be determined by individual theaters.
Below is Barco’s presentation from this year’s CinemaCon, including a brief look at Escape.
web page
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 09-01-2014, 10:04 PM:
BFD. Lot of crowing over something that Abel Gance did in 1927.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-01-2014, 10:18 PM:
Fine for a documentary but I'd find it very annoying for a regular movie.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 09-02-2014, 10:19 AM:
If the side screens are going to look like they do in the demo video, anyone comparing the experience to Cinerama should be taken out back and shot!
I took a screen capture and posted it in an article that I wrote on Friday:
"The Maze Runner" Gets Wider with Extra Screens in "Escape" Theaters
I just don't see how this would gain traction, in theaters or with audiences. It seems like a gimmick at best.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-02-2014, 11:30 AM:
And if it did "catch on," the idea of "decor" in a theater auditorium would eventually become a thing of the past as venues are converted to having the side walls undecorated and painted white so as to maximize "picture" quality.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-02-2014, 11:55 AM:
I don't understand why there are three distinct screens? With available digital/video technology from a decade ago, digital images from multiple video projectors can easily be blended to make one full, panoramic image with the joins practically invisible. Why break up the screen into 3 distinct segments? Seems very counter intuitive. You could do the exact same thing to even better effect with a wrap-around cinerama-type curve. Now if you wanna REALLY talk "gimmick," to impress me, they'd need to do it, but in 3D...which I am sure will be the next, next "big thing."
As for the first film with which they have chosen to launch this thing -- TEENAGERS (who would have guessed) caught in a maze. Real food for deep thought here. And after this one, it will be teenagers caught in a haunted house or teenagers in a spring break romp.
And as the marketing BS says, "some films are just too big for the big screen."
Save me.
Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 09-04-2014, 03:52 AM:
Gimmicky more than likely but Id really like to see a movie in this format.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-04-2014, 12:14 PM:
This just looks stupid, unrealistic and utterly distracting, but it's rather easy to figure out why they went this route: The composition of the movie itself can remain unaltered. There is no need for a special version of the main movie. The extra images can be "bolted on" rather cheaply, without even the need to touch the original content.
Like Frank already pointed out, modern projection technology should be able to almost seamlessly blend multiple projected images together. It could fix all the remaining issues with the Cinerama format. Unfortunately, this would require a whole new format, causing massive compatibility problems with existing systems. And creating two distinct version adds to the costs, without any guarantee of success.
I hope this miscarriage leads to an early abortion though. We don't need more stupid gimmicks. Message to Barco: Next time you dream up a new immersive technology, make it awesome please. Will the new Cinerama please stand up?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-04-2014, 02:40 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
We don't need more stupid gimmicks.
Exactly. Better movies, is what we need.
Seems like all the best ideas these days are being made into TV shows, while movies get the retread stuff. I suppose it's because it's cheaper to make stuff for TV. This doesn't bode well for the future.
Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 09-04-2014, 03:06 PM:
Didn't Disney do something like that on Blu-rays of their old 30's-40's cartoons? They'd have your original 1.37 image in the center, but with backgrounds on the sides of the picture to fill those black bars. I only experienced this for 40 seconds at a friend's house with his "Pinocchio" Blu. Beforehand I was curious what this "DisneyVision" was and my friend just said "It sucks." After watching the movie with those beautiful BLACK bars, we took a look at "DisneyVision" and turned it off immediately.
It looks like "The Maze Runner" will be augmented with such an experience. Why would I pay to see something where 1/3 is a finished movie and 2/3 are just some annoying effects that remotely relate to the movie? And it also looks like Cinemark is installing Escape at locations with an XD screen. Is Escape going to be part of the XD experience? Aren't the XD screens constant height/fixed flat and Escape was tailored for 2.39:1? It's probably going to the large non-XD screens.
The only shame Barco is feeling now is "The Maze Runner" appearing to not be available in Barco's 11.1 format. I personally think Dolby Atmos is a better companion for Escape.
And the CinemaCon video showcasing Escape has the Disney Castle. It's "DisneyVision" all over again.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-04-2014, 03:16 PM:
It's just all part of the campaign to make everything "immersive" (the current new buzzword) these days.
The idiots don't seem to get that you don't go to a movie looking to see everything around you. You go to see a picture in front of you. The rest is just a gimmick, as has been stated.
I always thought those Disney attractions where the screen wraps completely around you were stupid. Sure it's kind of cool once or twice to turn around and see what you just passed, but who cares? The thing you really want to see is right up in front.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-04-2014, 07:43 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
It's just all part of the campaign to make everything "immersive" (the current new buzzword) these days.
I do agree, but I do like the idea and I always wondered if they might do it with digital projection, I am going to wait till I see the finished product in person before I pass judgement.
However, I must say, all these different formats is getting a bit ridiculous. Not all of them can succeed and there really is way too many competing technologies/formats. What is also obvious is that there are less and less people going to the movies every year, this is not good for the industry long term and the more "immersive" formats they bring out is not going to change anything. If the studios really want people to go the movies, they need to make the home video significantly longer. I think it is down to less than 90 days now in some instances. The studios need to work hand-in-hand together to make the movie theater the prime option for watching s movie.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-07-2014, 07:03 PM:
quote: Connor Wilson
Didn't Disney do something like that on Blu-rays of their old 30's-40's cartoons? They'd have your original 1.37 image in the center, but with backgrounds on the sides of the picture to fill those black bars.
They sometimes do something similar with those awkward "portrait" mobile phone videos if they show them TV. They put a stretched and blurred version of the video in the background. The exact purpose isn't clear to me, the notion of having black bars on either sides is probably too shocking...
quote: Mike Blakesley
I always thought those Disney attractions where the screen wraps completely around you were stupid. Sure it's kind of cool once or twice to turn around and see what you just passed, but who cares? The thing you really want to see is right up in front.
I do largely agree on that one. Although it was sure cool to see those 9 screens around you. Also, if you look at the efforts they went through to actually film those things with their custom rig of nine 35mm cameras... But that gimmick had just limited use, it didn’t really add to the "immersion", as you were still clearly looking at nine different screens. It did add to the confusion though... Where do I have to look for the good stuff?! Still, it was only used for theme parks, for shows that last at most about 20 minutes. And I actually quite liked the Parisian version, at least I liked it better than the attraction that replaced it ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
quote: Mike Blakesley
It's just all part of the campaign to make everything "immersive" (the current new buzzword) these days.
It's just a pity those Buzzword Bingo playing execs and sales figures got the concept of "immersion" totally backward. Immersive isn't a synonym for distractive, it’s quite the opposite. Let's vote with our dollars and let them immerse their immersive gizmos where the sun won't shine.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I do agree, but I do like the idea and I always wondered if they might do it with digital projection, I am going to wait till I see the finished product in person before I pass judgement.
Do what with digital projection? Projecting multiple images synchronously? Or annoying the shit out of people? Both have been done with digital projection many times before.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-07-2014, 08:27 PM:
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-07-2014, 08:38 PM:
Just what we need, a bow tie-shaped movie screen.
Anyone who sits anywhere besides the three or four seats in the center of each row is going to have a crap experience...in the stadium sections, at least. For the people who sit in the front floor section, the side screens are pointless. (Well they're pointless for everyone I guess.)
EDIT: On closer inspection it looks like the front seats are covered. So that's one smart thing. Still, the sides of each row will be worthless so this auditorium is probably reduced to what, about 40 good seats?
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-08-2014, 12:07 AM:
More gimmicks to come out of "Hollyrock" to keep one step ahead their foe of over 50 years now .. being Television.
What's wrong with just a good story and plot instead of this fool "eye candy" to get the crowds to come back to the cinema - as above has already mentioned?
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 09-08-2014, 12:42 AM:
Or better yet, a cinema that actually cares about proper presentation with existing technology?
Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 09-10-2014, 11:01 AM:
This will work for some large theatres that still have room on the left and right sides of the main screen. Many cinemas have exits on both sides. It will be very costly to move them and the bright side wall lights that wreck all the pre show ads. It will look bad If the two new side screens are not on a good angle and just go on the side walls. Great If you sit in the first 10 rows. People will be looking right and left and won't see the nice effect as they would in the back like the old Cinerama days. The next gimmick will be screens on the ceiling for clouds ect.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-10-2014, 06:20 PM:
I propose the screen under your feet too... Like the IMAX Magic Carpet, of which exactly one installation exists.
We should burn those stupid gimmicks before they even get the slightest form of following.
This isn't Cinerama. Cinerama was a whole new format, it required purpose built auditoria, large adaptations tocinematography, etc. This one is a cheap-ass bolt-on, invented by a bunch of morons (yes Barco, I'm looking at you at the moment) to squeeze a few more dollars out of exhibitors and moviegoers, without adding anything of real, lasting value.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-10-2014, 07:47 PM:
I wouldn't mind trying it put before I rule it out.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-10-2014, 09:21 PM:
If you could provide one good reason for this to exist, I'd be in agreement with you. But you can't, because there is NO good reason for it. For one thing, they won't be able to put anything on the sides except for "extensions" of the scenery behind the main action, because they'll need to make the movie work in regular, non-whatever-this-is-called auditoriums.
Just imagine how unnatural it would look anytime the camera pans across a scene....or consider how weird it'd look if a character was to walk through one of those "corner creases." Unless you happen to be sitting in the exact right spot, it'll look oblique and weird when the pan or character or any building (or anything, really) goes across those corners. The photo shown is obviously a Photoshop job.
Just because something is a new idea doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-10-2014, 09:44 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Just because something is a new idea doesn't mean it's a good idea.
... think we heard this one before in many, many occasions ... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-10-2014, 10:42 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
If you could provide one good reason for this to exist, I'd be in agreement with you.
Well, the possibilities for having some real fun are there. Multiple story lines one has to follow simultaneously, for example (think Warhol's Chelsea Girls). Of course, that's too risky for big budget films, though the way they edit fight scenes these days is pretty close. In fact, they can use the screens more like comic book panels for all of the comic book movies they make.
It's always fun to experiment with the medium, but there are very few talented enough to make the artistic breakthrough.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-16-2014, 05:08 AM:
It's not just about talent, it's also about guts and costs. Like it has been already mentioned before, nobody is going to make a big budget movie exclusively for this format, since there will be just a handful of those installs. Independent releases that could use the format will probably never play in the theaters equipped with this system, because it will probably only end up in the bigger rooms.
It seems that Kinepolis Antwerp is getting one of these, just in time for the Maze Runner release. As somewhat of a Barco testbed, that's not entirely surprising. If I'm in the neighborhood, I might take a look, just to have myself convinced that this is just hogwash.
I'm also wondering how this will look during normal presentations. Those big white screens on the side with nothing on them, just reflecting ambient light. The idea of properly masking your screen must finally have died with this one.
Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 09-16-2014, 05:33 PM:
I think Escape would only work in special venue (theme park etc.) situations showing a film exclusive to that venue.
Looking at the pictures all the seats seem to be behind the side screens, being surrounded by screens would be far more effective but also far more expensive to retrofit.
Films made for Escape will not be, easily, downloadable to conventional projection, unless they don't make full use of the escape format. By contrast the premium sound systems (Atmos and Aurora) will downconvert more easily, some of the experience would be lost but not as much as loosing two thirds of the screen.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-16-2014, 07:10 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'm also wondering how this will look during normal presentations. Those big white screens on the side with nothing on them, just reflecting ambient light.
Hadn't thought about that...there's another reason it's a dopey idea.
To be fair though, I will point out that I didn't quite understand the configuration of the screens when I first heard of this. I thought they were going to be in sort of a box shape like
|_|
But instead the two side screens are angled, as in
\_/
It's still a stupid idea but at least it won't look quite as horrible to the side seats as I first envisioned.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-17-2014, 02:33 AM:
Well, I asked myself the same thing, because if you Google around a bit you see both the |_| and \_/ configuration. The \_/ configuration would be more "Cinerama style", but it comes at the cost of a reduced main-screen and I doubt this will neatly fit in any odd theater.
There's another interesting question: Where do you place the two additional projectors? At those odd angles, I guess it's rather impossible to put them in the booth...
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-18-2014, 05:12 PM:
Attached is a link to a report with an actual demo. I really like the idea, but how on earth could they of not merged the screens together so there is no space between the screens?
web page
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-18-2014, 06:24 PM:
I read that article, but it is just a "puff piece" about the guy at Fox who is one of the driving forces behind this new concept. There is a picture of him Photoshopped in front of the same phony screen we saw in the picture you posted earlier in this thread. I didn't see anything in the article or the various links about a demo or a review. Maybe you posted the wrong link? I would be interested in reading something like that, though -- but from an unbiased source, not from some guy who's main interest is in promoting this gimmick.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-19-2014, 06:40 AM:
I've see "Escape" in real life. I don't think it will go anywhere. I think mosaic images are just not a good cinema experience. Cinerama did everything it could to hide the join lines...Escape almost highlights them!
Bringing back a deeply curved screen by use of suitable lenses would have a bigger wow-factor, be more universally acceptable (as it would work for all sources) and even if you wanted to do a mosaic image via blending (that is doable with digital rather well) again a large deep curved screen would be more impressive than three flat screens in a trapezoid fashion.
One thing is for sure right now...NOBODY is looking for new ways to spend money on just showing the movie! People are quite poor on the cash front and this summer of 2014 has hurt a great many cinemas.
Would you rather spend money on those fancy electric recliner chairs that would affect EVERY show or buy two extra projectors and screens (and curtains if you are doing it right) so a couple of shows may have a wow-moment? Which will benefit your business better financially? Which will put more butts in those seats you have?
I get the idea that cinemas want to distinguish themselves from the home by providing something they don't have...but it is a WHOLE lot cheaper for the home to put up three flat-panels to simulate Escape than to do it in a cinema. IN the home, one WILL be in the sweet spot...not so in the cinema. A large deep curve screen, that is something that very few can/will do in the home, even if the technology becomes available for them.
I think this is more driven by a company that is trying to find new ways to sell the product they make.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-19-2014, 10:19 AM:
I think this "Escape" concept might be interesting in a motion simulator type of theater playing immersive thrill rides. But it's a lousy idea for traditional commercial movie theaters.
Cinema already has enough problems as it is with directors and cinematographers not really composing for a specific aspect ratio, using the frame the way a photographer really should be using it. Escape would worsen what I feel is already a serious problem.
Aside from that, previous similar experiments in home theater have failed. Remember those Philips HDTV sets with the LEDs hidden on the ends of the TV set? They would throw colored light on the walls behind and to the sides of the TV set as a means of blurring the left and right ends of the frame. Hardly anyone wanted those things. The effect was too damned distracting from what was on the screen.
D-cinema already has serious issues with contrast and weak black levels. Flanking the main screen with extensions to the left and right will create reflection problems back onto the main screen and kill contrast further. IIRC, one of the reasons for matte black masking around the edges of a screen is to improve the perception of a bright, contrasting image, with no ambient reflections getting back onto the screen.
quote: Steve Guttag
Bringing back a deeply curved screen by use of suitable lenses would have a bigger wow-factor, be more universally acceptable (as it would work for all sources) and even if you wanted to do a mosaic image via blending (that is doable with digital rather well) again a large deep curved screen would be more impressive than three flat screens in a trapezoid fashion.
I wouldn't mind seeing huge, deeply curved screens used in movie theaters again. But something would have to be done about the completely backward way the 'scope format is treated in d-cinema first. In 35mm projection 'scope was the biggest, high resolution format. In d-cinema 'scope is now the smallest, lowest resolution format. That sucks.
The horrible way 'scope is treated in d-cinema is one reason why I'm hoping 5-perf 70mm can make a comeback at least on some kind of limited basis.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-19-2014, 12:04 PM:
I would have no problem with the image going onto the imager in an anamorphic form and either let the projector scale back to 1:1 if you have constant width screens or use an anamorphic for constant height.
However, one thing that the creative types really wanted was no anamorphics...everything 1:1 (unless they want to digitally add their own distortion/flares..etc. back in).
Going back to anamorphics would be a big pill to swallow. Also, all of the constant height theatres would then have to budget in another $12,000 or so for the anamorphic lens/mover. Why do you think anamorphics haven't taken off in DCinema...they are perfectly compliant...they are available, they improve light by 23%.
But the cost...that is tough for a lot.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-19-2014, 01:54 PM:
It's great (or rather ironic) that they (Fox) are calling this the future of film. Three screens aligned besides each other, something Disney did with 9 screens back in the 1950s and even others did before them.
I agree with Steve, if you really would make an impact, you would come up with a deeply curved screen and the technology to make it look awesome. Like three separate projectors that blend into one amazing, mega high-res picture. Something that Cinerama could never entirely achieve, because of the limitations of that technology. Something that would IMAX give a run for their money with their current digital system.
The most amazing part would not even be that you succeeded into doing so, but you got the studios to allow you to do this with their content.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I think this "Escape" concept might be interesting in a motion simulator type of theater playing immersive thrill rides. But it's a lousy idea for traditional commercial movie theaters.
Yeah, but what amazing new technology do they bring to the table that you couldn't build with off-the-shelf components already? Three high-res digital projectors and a bunch of playback servers and a show-controller from e.g. Alcorn McBride and nobody needs Barco for anything but maybe the projectors.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Aside from that, previous similar experiments in home theater have failed. Remember those Philips HDTV sets with the LEDs hidden on the ends of the TV set? They would throw colored light on the walls behind and to the sides of the TV set as a means of blurring the left and right ends of the frame. Hardly anyone wanted those things. The effect was too damned distracting from what was on the screen.
Those things are called "Philips Ambilight" and although they're a niche, they're still available around here and people seemingly still buy them, as you can sometimes see them in action from afar in houses and apartments around here... They first came up with the model where you would have this "ambient LED strip" on the left and right side of the screen, now they have models with top and bottom "ambilight" too. Those things light up your whole room and are indeed, rather distracting and pointless.
quote: Bobby Henderson
D-cinema already has serious issues with contrast and weak black levels. Flanking the main screen with extensions to the left and right will create reflection problems back onto the main screen and kill contrast further. IIRC, one of the reasons for matte black masking around the edges of a screen is to improve the perception of a bright, contrasting image, with no ambient reflections getting back onto the screen.
The cinema of the future will be a concrete box painted white. No need for a damn screen anymore, you can project your immersiveness everywhere you want. Besides reflecting ambient light, those hard concrete walls will also be good at reflecting sound, which is a pre, because people like it loud...
quote: Steve Guttag
I would have no problem with the image going onto the imager in an anamorphic form and either let the projector scale back to 1:1 if you have constant width screens or use an anamorphic for constant height.
The image being already anamorphic inside the DCP would be part of the solution to get some resolution (and brightness) back into scope. The sad part of the story is, those "old" 1.3K machines did have anamorphic lenses for scope as that was the only way to do scope properly. I don't know if it were the creative types that decided that scope shouldn't be anamorphic no more once we moved to a set of standards around 2K and 4K, but whoever is guilty, they sure managed to codify that the pixels in the DCP itself are always square...
Posted by Terry Monohan (Member # 8285) on 09-20-2014, 11:51 AM:
This new movie just opened in the SF Bay Area and I see no theatres advertising It in this new format. Even the review guy in the SF Chronicle who gave It a bad review did not mention the new format? I think the Century in Redwood City CA was to install this but no mention in there ads. May be like Dolby Atmos the theatres don't plug what they have these days.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-20-2014, 12:08 PM:
quote: Terry Monohan
May be like Dolby Atmos the theatres don't plug what they have these days.
The Dolby Atmos cinemas near me throw the Dolby Atmos trailer in front of every picture that plays in the Atmos house. Apparently they like lying to the public. It just reinforces the idea that the general public doesn't give a shit about the format.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-20-2014, 12:36 PM:
So the fact that one theatre has an idiot show programmer indicates what the worldwide public thinks about a sound format. That is ridiculous.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-20-2014, 03:02 PM:
Mike, read what I said, I said general public.
Another big problem is that many theaters have chosen to pair Atmos with shitty 2K single projection. And nobody knows if these 4K Atmos (if there are any) establishments are really running 4K, heck Cineplex AVX is supposed to be 4K and yet they just advertise every thing in Atmos ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
We Review ‘Maze Runner’ in Barco Escape’s Immersive 270 Degree Screen Format: “A Little Taste Of The Future” Posted on Friday, September 19th, 2014
Looks like this Barco Escape thing is half-assed and cobbled together.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-20-2014, 04:05 PM:
What sound format a theatre runs has absolutely zip to do with how many K the picture is.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-20-2014, 08:17 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The Dolby Atmos cinemas near me throw the Dolby Atmos trailer in front of every picture that plays in the Atmos house. Apparently they like lying to the public. It just reinforces the idea that the general public doesn't give a shit about the format.
Well, the local Atmos cinema puts an Atmos "informercial" in every theater in before every show. They're not claiming the movie you're about to see is in this format, only that you can experience it here, in this theater. They do play the correct Dolby trailers/snipes at the beginning of the show, even in their Atmos theater, they play a Dolby 7.1 or "generic Dolby" trailer before shows without Atmos soundtrack.
When it first opened, the system sounded rather unconvincing, especially because I've heard Atmos before and knew what it could do. But they were running on a bunch of underpowered amps (seemingly, QSC couldn't get the proper amps there in time for opening, but that's just unconfirmed rumors). With the proper amps in place, this system performs great and people DO notice the difference. I'm pretty sure a lot of them did already come back for the experience.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Another big problem is that many theaters have chosen to pair Atmos with shitty 2K single projection.
Besides Digital IMAX, there's only Christie that offers a dual-projection cinema system for 2D presentations. And for 3D presentations, 4K doesn't matter anyway, as there are currently ZERO 4K 3D movies. But IMAX's 2K isn't shitty I guess?
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Looks like this Barco Escape thing is half-assed and cobbled together.
I thought you would withhold your judgement until you've seen it yourself?
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-22-2014, 09:14 AM:
quote:
Going back to anamorphics would be a big pill to swallow. Also, all of the constant height theatres would then have to budget in another $12,000 or so for the anamorphic lens/mover. Why do you think anamorphics haven't taken off in DCinema...they are perfectly compliant...they are available, they improve light by 23%.
Why on earth would a lens changing mechanism cost THAT much $$ if manufactured on a global scale? Automatic turrets on film projectors were run of the mill and not even an add-on; they certainly didn't add that kind of additional cost to the projector. Oh, wait, I forgot -- these are DIGITAL projector...they can charge anything they want. That kind of money is ludicrous -- and it just shows they were never interested in the anamorphic route in the first place -- it's not as sexy as doing it all digitally -- an optical solution is sooooo analog old-school.
Hell, I can get a machine shop to put together a motorized lens changing unit for a third of that, and that would be a prototype, one-off unit. Order me 2000 of them and you could probably get them down to a grand or so. Have them incorporated as part of the projector physical design, and the cost would be negligible.
There is no reason why anamorphic projection, with all its indisputable advantages, can't be standard for digital projection just as it was for film optics. For the DCI to not require it was a blunder and quite frankly a disgrace for an organization making decisions on quality of what people will see for generations...again proving that presentation quality was never the highest motivation for that committee. A pox on all their houses.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-22-2014, 12:32 PM:
Hold on there Roseanne...
The price I gave was for the Aanamorphic AND the mover...the Anamorphic being the majority of the price. A DCinema anamorphic typically is over $10,000 without the mover. These are nice round numbers too. Sure, if things were made in quantity, the prices would likely go down.
Right now, MiT makes their XL Mover that they make an anamorphic lens mount for so it is the same price to automate a Real-D XL as it is to automate an Anamorphic.
Posted by Randy Pryde (Member # 7488) on 09-22-2014, 10:02 PM:
Steve,
We paid over $13,000 last year for Schneider's anamorphic. Do you know of any other current manufacturer? The ones that Christie used to sell were much much less, but the Schneider is indeed a superior product.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-23-2014, 06:27 AM:
Schneider no longer makes "their" anamorphic. Among other things, it had vignetting issues. Since Schneider (once again) owns ISCO...the ISCO anamorphic is the surviving anamorphic for Digital Cinema. It sells for less than the price you mention. Did you go direct to Schneider or did you go through a dealer?
I'm also questioning how you came to the conclusion that the Schneider version is a superior product? Having used the ISCO version on numerous installations, I'm familiar with its capabilities.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-23-2014, 11:35 AM:
quote: Frank Angel
There is no reason why anamorphic projection, with all its indisputable advantages, can't be standard for digital projection just as it was for film optics. For the DCI to not require it was a blunder and quite frankly a disgrace for an organization making decisions on quality of what people will see for generations...again proving that presentation quality was never the highest motivation for that committee. A pox on all their houses.
Sorry Frank, I have to disagree with you on this one. It was determined very early that not having a anamorphic lense would be cheaper and help with D-Cinema adoption. Fiscally is really makes no sense for a chain to want to add anamorphic across a network.
I also hate to say it, but the paying public does not care. 99% of the paying audience have no idea that there is no anamorphic lenses being used.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-23-2014, 12:25 PM:
Competent, professional quality and professional standards of practice should never be balanced on whether the general public would know the difference or not. This goes for many industries and professions, not just this movie stuff we talk about here.
If I couldn't be bothered to follow some professional standards of practice in my own job, since 99% of the public doesn't really know any better, I'd deserve to be finding another line of work.
If the average person knew everything why would he need someone like a car mechanic to fix his transmission or even a licensed barber to cut his hair? If the general public knew all the aspects of d-cinema they could run the damned movies themselves, but no, they need to actually have somebody do that for them.
The unavoidable fact is 'scope has been shit upon in how it has been implemented into d-cinema. Basically it's no different that watching something at home, letterboxed on the HDTV set. Same exact treatment.
The only way any anamorphic treatment can be worth doing at all in d-cinema is if the imagery in the DCP is anamorphic and covering the maximum horizontal and vertical resolution of the 2K or 4K formats. The projector should only be un-squeezing the image horizontally. If the projector is doing some 2 stage thing, squeezing/un-squeezing on both vertical and horizontal axis then it's a freaking waste of time.
I still contend so many movies are cropped down to what is really now fake 'scope anymore as a cost cutting measure. Fewer pixels to record in the camera. Fewer pixels to render, encode and store in post production. Fewer pixels to distribute via DCP, Blu-ray, cable, broadcast and Internet streaming.
With film, there were differences in how 'scope was treated -with formats like anamorphic 4-perf 35mm full frame Panavision at the higher end and spherical Techniscope at the lower end. Scope in d-cinema is nothing but lower end. It's about being cheap and making the movie going experience more like the TV watching experience.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-23-2014, 12:31 PM:
So what you are saying is what I was saying, that the DCI committee was writing technical specs not solely for setting a standard for the highest quality of presentation that the technology could achieve, but on economic and political factors such as helping the digital roll-out, which to me is the WORST reason and there again there's the IGE factor (It's Good Enough) -- i.e., everyone bowing at the alter of mediocrity.
Should the standards for an industry be based, not what the technology is capable of in terms of quality of presentation, but on on the perception of the public and on the lowest quality they will tolerate or care about? If that were the case, all the small mulitplex screens could be using 16mm with DTS tracks and the public would be fine with it.
The exhibitor should be the one to decide how high he wants to push his presentation quality based on his economic model, not a standards committee. If he thinks he can get away with lower quality and still make a profit while cheating the public, then that's between him and his customers. But a standards committee should set the highest standards for the digital technology and then let all the other factors sort themselves out in the real world.
Anamorphics allow the entire chip to be used with ALL the pixels displaying the image and much better light throughput to the screen. Sure the lenses are expensive, but they were expensive with scope for film as well. The exhibitor wasn't given a choice with film and he survived. Now he's got a choice but I think the DCI should have been pushing in the direction of using the best of the technology rather than giving its blessing for second best. I'm just sayin...
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-23-2014, 03:09 PM:
Knowing that they're going to need the home-video market to make a profit, how much important stuff are they really going to put in those side images?
Seems like a long walk for a short drink of water.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-23-2014, 04:36 PM:
I'm kind of wondering if these companies even care about the home video market. I've been reading about how these media giants parent companies have been gutting the home video departments of personnel at all the major studios. And now they're exploring ways to cut staff on the primary side of things (development, production, theatrical distribution, etc.). It's all in the name of increasing profit margins and stock prices. But how are they going to get anything done with a low-bid paid skeleton crew of staff? Do they expect all those computers to generate the movies and all the work involved in selling/distributing movies by themselves?
It makes me wonder if the parent global media companies want to spin all this tiresome movie making stuff off to Netflix yet still expect to make even more money.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-23-2014, 06:10 PM:
quote: Frank Angel
So what you are saying is what I was saying, that the DCI committee was writing technical specs not solely for setting a standard for the highest quality of presentation that the technology could achieve, but on economic and political factors such as helping the digital roll-out, which to me is the WORST reason and there again there's the IGE factor (It's Good Enough) -- i.e., everyone bowing at the alter of mediocrity.
Well, that's the commonly accepted truth right there, isn't it?
If they really wanted to be digital to be somewhat equal to 35mm, they would've made 4K mandatory. They would also have included non-square pixels into the specs, with mandatory anamorphics, just like the 1.3K machines had.
The problem was, back in 2005 or so, when this finally came together to something akin a standard, 4K was not entirely there yet, at least not in any affordable form. Still, those studios were driven by the money they potentially could save and companies like Barco were very eager to push into a lucrative new niche.
quote: Manny Knowles
Knowing that they're going to need the home-video market to make a profit, how much important stuff are they really going to put in those side images?
Well, this Maze Runner release apparently has only 5 to 7 minutes of content actually using those side panels. You're spending about $150k+ on this and the first movie already gives you the finger. I've already seen the movie, although not in "Escape", but it was clear to me which scenes were "Escapified".
There are just two short scenes that use it: The Elevator scene right at the start of the movie and an actual "Maze Runner Scene" somewhat at the end of the movie. Both scenes can be easily extended using CGI-only. I guess that was the main requirement, as nobody really shot two extra perspectives on set.
quote: Bobby Henderson
It makes me wonder if the parent global media companies want to spin all this tiresome movie making stuff off to Netflix yet still expect to make even more money.
I've been waiting for the announcement of one of them buying Netflix before their cash runs out or Netflix becomes finally too big to buy. Those big media companies are collectively stuck in the past, others slowly eating their lunch while they keep burning their cash in bundles on b.s. like suing half the world for copyright infringement and schmoozing with corrupt politicians around the globe. We have to wait until one of those massive telcos/cablecos or one of their parents gets into action, further establishing their already stringent grip on the content market.
Posted by Randy Pryde (Member # 7488) on 09-23-2014, 10:59 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Schneider no longer makes "their" anamorphic. Among other things, it had vignetting issues. Since Schneider (once again) owns ISCO...the ISCO anamorphic is the surviving anamorphic for Digital Cinema. It sells for less than the price you mention. Did you go direct to Schneider or did you go through a dealer?
I'm also questioning how you came to the conclusion that the Schneider version is a superior product? Having used the ISCO version on numerous installations, I'm familiar with its capabilities.
Steve, I have not done an A/B comparison with the Schneider vs our original Series I ISCO's. The sales people at Schneider are the ones who told me it was superior to our vintage ISCO's, (hence the premium list price.) Last fall we tested the Schneider on a CP4230 with the 1.25-1.83 lens zoomed to the max (1.13 in 4K, effective throw ratio 0.91 with the anamorphic). Crisp image, with no vignetting. We did not have our ISCO at the test site, but will try to run the comparison when the permanent install is finished in January.
As to the price we paid....our dealer reads the forum and I look forward to his explanation tomorrow.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-23-2014, 11:23 PM:
quote: Frank Angel
So what you are saying is what I was saying, that the DCI committee was writing technical specs not solely for setting a standard for the highest quality of presentation that the technology could achieve, but on economic and political factors such as helping the digital roll-out, which to me is the WORST reason and there again there's the IGE factor (It's Good Enough) -- i.e., everyone bowing at the alter of mediocrity.
The DCI standard was the perfect balance as a good enough alternative to 35mm film presentations. IMO, I do not miss 35mm presentations compared to the consistency of what I know I am getting with DCI. The 99% of the public who pay for movies do not care, a digital presentation is good enough for them.
If I were the one signing the bills, I would not waste my time with anamorphic lenses. As a fan boy I would care if I were getting an anamorphic presentation but unless I am upstairs in the booth, how do I really know? So I do not worry about it.
quote: Frank Angel
If that were the case, all the small mulitplex screens could be using 16mm with DTS tracks and the public would be fine with it.
I believe the Eaton Center in downtown Toronto used to run 16mm, I do remember the theaters being sold out in the early 80s.
quote: Frank Angel
The exhibitor should be the one to decide how high he wants to push his presentation quality based on his economic model, not a standards committee.
Agreed, however if I were paying the bills, I would rather have "good enough" 2K zoom lenses than installing anamorphic lenses across my network that could be 10, 20, 100 or even a 1000 screens.
quote: Frank Angel
Anamorphics allow the entire chip to be used with ALL the pixels displaying the image and much better light throughput to the screen.
True, yes, agreed. However out of the 1000 plus screens that are within 500 miles of me, I have no idea who is running zoom, who is running a fixed lense, or who is running an anamorphic, and I have no idea (aside from IMAX digital) who is running dual projection. Heck I can't even guarantee that the local multiplex near me is really playing a movie in Dolby Atmos The paying public really does not care.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-24-2014, 12:11 AM:
No one is doing anamorphic correctly in d-cinema. It's impossible. To do it right would require the JPEG 2000 imagery in the DCP to be anamorphic. None of it is authored that way.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Heck I can't even guarantee that the local multiplex near me is really playing a movie in Dolby Atmos
Terry, do you actually believe your own bullshit? Any idiot could figure it out with just a little effort. A little bit of web searching could tell you which movies are mixed in Dolby Atmos and which theaters are equipped to play it.
You keep repeating that complaint about Atmos equipped theaters in your area playing Dolby Atmos trailers before any movie. Why don't you complain to the fucking theater manager about it instead of repeatedly bitching about it here? I don't live near Toronto. And if you really can't figure out if a certain movie is in Atmos or not then you're stupid, lazy or both. I think you actually know what movies are mixed in the format. Yet you keep making the same complaints here, acting like you don't know. Either way, you're making yourself stupid by repeating it again and again.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-24-2014, 12:29 AM:
Bobby, you missed the point. How does one really know for absolute sure that the movie is in Atmos? 4K? Et etc. As it applies to anamorphics, how does one really absolutely super duperly know that the movie is being shown with the full chip/anamorphic lenses? The answer is THEY DON'T. The average paying movie goer really does not know and they do not give a shit.
As for the Atmos comment, don't get so riled up.
On a side note, the Dolby Atmos brand is really going to shit anyway ![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
, home blu ray and streaming, home processors with 24.1.10 layouts, tablets, cell phones and head phones are on the way. Worst of all are those stupid speakers that bounce Atmos off the ceiling.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-24-2014, 02:03 AM:
Just like many claims by Terry, this one is also running a bit thin. I cannot account for the Dolby Atmos trailer thing he keeps iterating, but...
It looks like Cineplex clearly lists on their website if a movie is in Atmos or not*. Look for the Maze Runner thing (at the top while posting).
And getting right back to IMAX... Where is that fancy site that informs us if a certain "IMAX" location is playing a movie in 15/70 or in crappy 2K on oversized screens and cropped down aspect-ratios?
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Worst of all are those stupid speakers that bounce Atmos off the ceiling.
Ah, those damn speakers on the ceiling. You mean the ones IMAX will also be getting for their newly re-imagined/borrowed surround system?
* Note: content on links might expire prematurely...
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-24-2014, 02:08 AM:
Marcel, I am referring to the Dolby Atmos home speakers that bounce off the ceiling.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-24-2014, 06:57 AM:
Really? Schneider said that the Schneider lens was better? Did you expect any other answer? Ask someone at the ISCO factory and I'll wager you would get the opposite answer. It is all moot now though...whatever Schneider Anamorphics are out there are all that there will be. The reason I was told by Schneider that the ISCO "won" was due to its wider acceptance of all lenses/ throw ratios. I can tell you that with the ISCO you can get a tack sharp picture corner-to-corner too.
Out of curiosity...how are you swinging the lens in/out of the image? Did you get one of the Christie MALMs from somewhere? Or did you use the MIT mover or did you just come up with your own solution?
As for encoding the image in an anamorphic fashion. I really don't think it was a cost thing...it is was a quality thing. Most "scope" movies were being shot Super-35 to avoid the negative aspects of shooting in anamorphic (lens flares, differing focal planes in each dimension and I'm sure a slew of other reasons that DPs could better express). Once you put some form of scaling in...you are going to to take a hit in the image quality if you just electronically scale it back (e.g. merely apply a .8x squeeze in the vertical for constant width theatres). Remember too, the vast majority of theatres use a constant width screen, at the moment. As such you have a system that is reflective of its day...directors shooting spherical combined with theatres that primarily have 1.85 screens. Mind you, I'm not endorsing this line of thinking...just saying it wasn't necessarily all about cost but actually trying to provide a format that would effectively replicate what would be best for most theatres. If you have a constant width screen the light difference between flat and scope is negligible. With film and constant width, there was no good way to get Flat and Scope to have the same light levels...Scope would always be too bright. The solution...don't put in the stupid constant width screen. Let Scope be what it is...the "BIG" picture with the wide panoramic views.
Note DCI didn't preclude anamorphics in projection. So if you have a constant height screen, anamorphics get you a substantial amount of light back to get Flat and Scope light requirements much closer. It doesn't help in the resolution department, however.
Since DCI seems to be able to rewrite the rules willy-nilly...nothing would stop them from allowing an anamorphic process on the taking side...or perhaps just coming up with a 2.39:1 imager as we move beyond 4K. The sucky thing on the theatre side though is that our light generally starts out as a cone (round) which doesn't go through a rectangle efficiently. Perhaps lasers will help us on that front too.
For sure, at this point in time, anamorphics are the right solution for constant height theatres.
Here is the Christie MALM with an ISCO Anamorphic in front of a Christie CP4230. It is too bad they don't still make the MALM (or an improvement of it).
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-24-2014, 01:45 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, you missed the point. How does one really know for absolute sure that the movie is in Atmos? 4K? Et etc.
I didn't miss any point. I'm just calling you out as a troll whose complaints are nothing short of hypocrisy.
You keep repeating the same old complaints how some Cineplex theaters in the Toronto area are mis-using Dolby Atmos snipes and whining about all kinds of other stuff you think is misleading. Yet you are a shameless FANBOY of IMAX. IMAX is the movie theater industry leader in terms of misleading information. They're guaranteed to pull their same old act of calling anything IMAX when Interstellar is released. They're not going to differentiate whether a theater is showing the movie in 15-perf 70mm fil or HDTV resolution 2K video. I don't expect them to call any differences to theaters equipped with 4K laser projection or regular 2K in the future either. Same goes for sound. They mislead the public into thinking it's all the same. They just stick the "IMAX" name on it and leave it at that.
Exposing misleading advertising, poor marketing, etc. isn't the point of your fake gripes. You're only taking any opportunity you see, no matter how slight or off-topic it may be, to shit on Dolby Atmos. It gets your goat that there are sound processes out there far better than the bullshit currently deployed in your beloved IMAX branded theaters.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
As it applies to anamorphics, how does one really absolutely super duperly know that the movie is being shown with the full chip/anamorphic lenses? The answer is THEY DON'T.
Nobody does it correctly. What difference is there whether you know a theater is using an anamorphic setup or not? Current implementations are merely zooming a non-anamorphic image.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The average paying movie goer really does not know and they do not give a shit.
Any professional needs to do his job correctly whether the customer notices it or not. It's not the customer's job to "give a shit", notice or whatever you want to call it. If he is only going to do work based solely on what customers will notice then he needs to find another line of work or just go on welfare or something. Compromise, particularly when it isn't necessary, is unprofessional. IMHO the way 'scope is handled in d-cinema is unprofessional.
quote: Steve Guttag
As for encoding the image in an anamorphic fashion. I really don't think it was a cost thing...it is was a quality thing. Most "scope" movies were being shot Super-35 to avoid the negative aspects of shooting in anamorphic (lens flares, differing focal planes in each dimension and I'm sure a slew of other reasons that DPs could better express). Once you put some form of scaling in...you are going to to take a hit in the image quality if you just electronically scale it back (e.g. merely apply a .8x squeeze in the vertical for constant width theatres).
What I'm talking about is the same principal as how the vast majority of DVDs were encoded. "16x9 enhanced" 'scope DVDs always looked better on HDTV sets than non-anamorphic letter-boxed 'scope DVDs. It didn't matter if the 'scope movie (or "flat" 1.85:1 movie) was filmed with anamorphic or spherical lenses. The imagery had a LOT more native detail encoded onto the disc itself. A TV set only had to un-squeeze an anamorphic DVD in just one direction whereas a non-anamorphic DVD had to be zoomed both in the horizontal and vertical directions. My old, non-anamorphic copies of True Lies and The Abyss: Special Edition are pretty much un-watchable on my new 65" TV set while old 16x9 enhanced DVDs at least look about halfway decent.
In the case of 2K one would squeeze a 2592 X 1080 image into a 2048 X 1080 frame. Then the theater's projector would un-squeeze it by roughly a 1.25x ratio to get it back to 'scope proportions. That's how it should be working rather than taking a smaller, native 2048 X 852 image and blowing it up in odd ways.
A full frame 2K image (2048 X 1080) has 2,211,840 pixels. Current 2K 'scope is 2048 X 852 or 1,744,896 in terms of pixels -466,944 pixels less than an anamorphic full frame 2K image. That's a huge difference in terms of native resolution in the image itself.
Hell, the "flat" format has 2,157,840 pixels, which is still over 400,000 more pixels that non-anamorphic 2K 'scope.
Between the growing number of common width movie theater screens (where 'scope gets to be letter-boxed just like a TV set regardless of how it's projected) and the way 'scope is merely cropped down to a lower resolution image, I see the use of 'scope aspect ratios in movie production falling off big time in the years ahead.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-24-2014, 02:24 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
They're not going to differentiate whether a theater is showing the movie in 15-perf 70mm fil or HDTV resolution 2K video.
Bobby, hold on a second, if I recall correctly, when Warner released The Dark Knight and the The Dark Knight Rises, it was listed on the IMAX.com and Warner Bros.com where the 15/70 locations were.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I didn't miss any point.
Bobby, you did miss the point. The public has no idea how how movie projection works, and most of the public does not give a shit. And if I recall correctly, you yourself were educated by members on this forum how current DCI anamorphic set ups work. You didn't even know yourself how the full chip/anamorphic set up worked.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-24-2014, 04:00 PM:
Educated me? There is NOTHING in any DCP that is anamorphic at all. Any use of anamorphics in current d-cinema setups is kind of like tits on a bull. You gotta have the combination of both anamorphic software and anamorphic hardware for it to be worth a damn (like the combination of a 35mm 'scope film print and a film projector with an anamorphic decompression lens). Right now there's only hardware and so it's just a different method of zooming a low resolution, non-anamorphic image. That's all.
I might be able to buy some arguments about how an anamorphic setup spreads light, but it isn't doing anything to improve 'scope image quality in terms of native resolution. The damned detail isn't there in the DCP. 'Scope is now the lowest resolution format. It sucks. It's going to stay that way until it's treated differently, or "filmmakers" and common width theaters will just transition away from it and make all movies in 1.85:1 or 1.77:1 ratios.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, hold on a second, if I recall correctly, when Warner released The Dark Knight and the The Dark Knight Rises, it was listed on the IMAX.com and Warner Bros.com where the 15/70 locations were.
Think again. IMAX was never forthcoming about that kind of information. Warner Bros. wasn't exactly clear about it either. Movie goers were at the mercy of theaters to denote if they were showing a 15-perf 70mm film print. Many of those theaters didn't bother with those kinds of specifics. Just say "IMAX". That's it. I remember having to call the Cinemark theater in Colorado Springs to verify they were showing The Dark Knight in real IMAX.
WB could have sent out a press release about IMAX prints, but other sources, such as Michael Coate's posts in this forum, have been more reliable. Sites like LF Examiner have been a better source on which theaters still had any 15/70 capability in place. IMAX itself sure as hell wasn't going to be specific about it.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-24-2014, 05:16 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I might be able to buy some arguments about how an anamorphic setup spreads light, but it isn't doing anything to improve 'scope image quality in terms of native resolution.
Bobby, stop focusing on the native resolution. A theater that presents a DCP scope film with an anamorphic lense will yield a better image than a theater that is using a zoom lense. The native resolution is not the determining factor in this case.
BUT YOU STILL MISS THE POINT..the paying customer has no way to tell if a theater is truly using an anamorphic lense, this is why the audience does not give a shit.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Warner Bros. wasn't exactly clear about it either.
Bobby, you are complete buffoon, get your facts straight. web page
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-24-2014, 05:57 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, you are complete buffoon, get your facts straight. web page
That's a WB web page for The Dark Knight Rises, not the The Dark Knight.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, stop focusing on the native resolution. A theater that presents a DCP scope film with an anamorphic lense will yield a better image than a theater that is using a zoom lense. The native resolution is not the determining factor in this case.
Native resolution is a very fundamental thing. There's no getting past a 466,000 pixel difference between a fake 'scope image and one that actually would accomplish an anamorphic method correctly.
It doesn't matter if a theater stretches or zooms that 2048 X 852 resolution image, it's still starting from a more limited, lower resolution original image. The image would look a whole lot better if it started out, before un-squeezing, as a native 2048 X 1080 image. There's no getting around that fundamental fact.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
BUT YOU STILL MISS THE POINT..the paying customer has no way to tell if a theater is truly using an anamorphic lense, this is why the audience does not give a shit.
I didn't miss any point. The theaters might as well never advertise it if they're starting out with a non-anamorphic 2048 X 852 source image in the DCP.
And your statements about the audience "not giving a shit" is a bunch of presumptuous, made up bullshit from you (which you keep repeating in typical troll style). If anything, audiences just don't know of the details. Them "not giving a shit" implies that they do know all the details and just don't care about it anyway. That's actually more your deal when it comes to being a little fanboy for IMAX. You know their digital system has shortcomings, yet you think it's the greatest thing. You know IMAX' sound system is, at best, controversial, if not just plain shitty. Your constant jabs at Dolby Atmos really kind of shows you have an inferiority complex about some other things being better than what IMAX is selling.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-24-2014, 07:43 PM:
Again, you fail to understand. The paying have no way of telling if the DCP is being shown with an anamorphic lense.
As for resolution, you are emphasizing took much on the native res, there is much more to a presentation than just resolution. Yes, resolution is important, but it is not the be all end all. The customer does not give shit about anamorphic lenses vs zoomed DCP. Nor do they have a way of telling.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-24-2014, 08:10 PM:
Terry, it's obvious you don't know a damned thing about pixel-based imagery and the limits of how it can and cannot be manipulated.
As for what's being advertised to the audience or not regarding anamorphic use, the thing you're blatantly ignoring and trolling is there currently is zero justification for any theater to advertise it. No theater in existence is doing it correctly. Your repeated statements about the audience not knowing or not giving a shit is irrelevant. The movie industry doesn't have a legitimate implementation of it worth advertising. If any theater did make a point of advertising "anamorphic d-cinema" the way current DCPs are encoded I'd call "bullshit" on their advertising.
I know you want to keep going round and round with this, but the plain truth is Hollywood isn't even at square one in regards to anamorphic d-cinema. They gotta at least get there before audiences can even have a chance to give a shit about it or not.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-24-2014, 08:17 PM:
Bobby, again. A digital presentation with an anamorphic lense will be superior than a digital presentation with a zoom or fixed lense.
Posted by Randy Pryde (Member # 7488) on 09-24-2014, 10:08 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Out of curiosity...how are you swinging the lens in/out of the image? Did you get one of the Christie MALMs from somewhere? Or did you use the MIT mover or did you just come up with your own solution?
We were able to pick up several used MALMs at a good price. Thanks for the tip on the MIT mover, I did not know that it would also accomodate an anamorphic. For our larger common height screens, the light improvement with an anamorphic can sometimes mean a reduction in lamp size. Reduced bulb cost per hour can make a case for an acceptable return on investment on the purchase of the anamorphic.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-24-2014, 11:23 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, again. A digital presentation with an anamorphic lense will be superior than a digital presentation with a zoom or fixed lense.
Superior how, specifically? Care to provide something more than vague statements?
At best, an anamorphic setup is only going to give you a more efficient spread of light on a common height movie screen where 'scope is the biggest projected image. If you're going to claim the image is sharper and more detailed you're off your rocker. The native resolution isn't there to make that happen.
See if you can wrap your thick head around this Terry:
Using 2K as the example, Hollywood studios create 2K movies at 2048 X 852 pixels in resolution. Sometimes they render them at 1920 X 800 and blow them up a little to 2K. What the theater gets on that DCP is over 466,000 pixels short of covering the full height of that 2048 X 1080 imager. A theater with an anamorphic setup has to alter that image twice. It gets digitally "up-rezzed" disproportionately from its original 2048 X 852 size to 2048 X 1080 before the image is put through the projector and altered yet again, optically, through an anamorphic lens.
Up-rezzing doesn't create any new detail. Lots of Photoshop hacks out there can't seem to understand that, among lots of other "don't do" kinds of things. Changing an image from its original, native resolution to a larger size often degrades image quality. The best image re-sampling methods can't overcome that.
Then you have any issues the anamorphic lens is going to bake into the already digitally bullshitted image when it is projected onto a movie theater screen.
Here's how Hollywood should be producing 2K:
In the production & post production stage they should be rendering a 'scope image where 1080 is the base height of the image, not 800 or 852. A 2.4:1 ratio image with a 1080 height would be 2592 X 1080. That's what they should be rendering, but they're not since there's a huge difference between 2592 X 1080 and 2048 X 852. It's a difference of more than a million pixels (2,799,360 versus 1,744,896). Those differences are geometrically expanded when you scale it to 4K. All those extra pixels translate to higher cost. Instead, they've gone the cheaper, lower quality route.
When they encode the DCP they should be squeezing that 2592 X 1080 image horizontally to 2048 X 1080 (and using their high dollar post production software to re-sample it to 2048 X 1080 properly). The movie theater ends up getting a real 'scope DCP that doesn't need any digital bullshit happening in the server & projector. The image just gets un-squeezed optically. I guarantee that kind of 'scope DCP image would look a fuck-ton better than the poor excuse for 'scope we're getting now. Not to mention it would give theaters with proper common height screens a leg up on all those damned common width theaters.
'Scope DCPs wouldn't be so friendly to common width theaters stuck with letter-boxing 'scope movies or theaters using non-anamorphic setups. But that can be overcome digitally. The 2048 X 1080 'scope image can be re-mapped to 2048 X 852 using the same principal DVD players have used to make 16x9 enhanced DVDs play normally on old 4:3 SD TV sets. Shit, they could probably enable this kind of function with a firmware update.
After explaining all that with clear, yet easy to understand numerical specifics, it's obvious the current way 'scope is treated in d-cinema is absolutely, stupidly backward.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-25-2014, 12:05 AM:
Bobby, in a constant height cinema (side masking) when projecting scope DCPs you are always using the scaler whether you use an anamorphic, zoom, or fixed lense. However, when you project with an anamorphic lense you are using the full imager thus you will have all 2048x1080 available pixels of the imager to create the remapped image. The light efficiency will be 100% in anamorphic Vs 80% with a zoom/fixed lense which is only using 2048x857 pixels of the imager.
While resolution is very important, there are just as important factors that make up a quality image.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-25-2014, 12:50 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Care to provide something more than vague statements?
Are you kidding? He can't even seem to spell "lens."
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-25-2014, 12:53 AM:
Mike, I always leave something in their for idiots like you to comment on. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-25-2014, 01:32 AM:
Looks like "there" is also a difficult word to spell.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
While resolution is very important, there are just as important factors that make up a quality image.
Yeah, the f(bs) a.k.a. bullshit factor is also very important. It requires at least an f(bs) > 5 to attain a Terry-approved digital presentation. I've heard that Digital IMAX with an f(bs) of about 7 to 8 could perfectly fit your needs.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, in a constant height cinema (side masking) when projecting scope DCPs you are always using the scaler whether you use an anamorphic, zoom, or fixed lense.
And why exactly, in your infinite, proven wisdom, would you be constantly using the scaler for scope if you've got a zoom lens(e) and no anamorphic attachment?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-25-2014, 10:11 AM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, in a constant height cinema (side masking) when projecting scope DCPs you are always using the scaler whether you use an anamorphic, zoom, or fixed lense. However, when you project with an anamorphic lense you are using the full imager thus you will have all 2048x1080 available pixels of the imager to create the remapped image. The light efficiency will be 100% in anamorphic Vs 80% with a zoom/fixed lense which is only using 2048x857 pixels of the imager.
It's still bullshit digital zoom. The fundamentals are no different from someone hitting one of the zoom settings on their HDTV set to get rid of black bars on a Blu-ray disc. The image, blown up out of its original fixed resolution, is degraded when artifically enlarged. Degradation occurs whether it's happening on one axis (vertically) or both axis (vertically & horizontally).
'Scope DCPs ought to be arriving already encoded at full frame 2048 X 1080 to avoid any phony digital scaling. If any digital scaling should be happening it ought to be down-scaling a 2048 X 1080 image to 2048 X 852 for those shitty, common width screens. Those theaters deserve the HDTV in public type treatment since their screens are already designed that way. Again, doing 'scope correctly in d-cinema isn't happening due to cost cutting, quality harming reasons.
If 'scope DCPs were already encoded at full frame 2048 X 1080 it would make the investment in an anamorphic setup far more worth it. Right now, it might be something that can save a theater money on lamp costs, but it sure as hell is not something worth advertising to the public.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
While resolution is very important, there are just as important factors that make up a quality image.
Color depth and contrast. But you're speaking as if the native resolution of an image with a fixed set of pixels on a Bayer pattern grid is somehow flexible.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Mike, I always leave something in their for idiots like you to comment on.
Terry, I'm looking forward to the day you get banned from this forum. We've seen at least a few people push their luck a little too far and get blocked over it.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-26-2014, 02:24 AM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Mike, I always leave something in their for idiots like you to comment on.
You must be bipolar or something. You insult people who disagree with you even when you are proven wrong, and you claim not to like name-calling, but then you go do it yourself. You repeatedly post for no other apparent reason than to stir people up, which makes you a troll, which many people here have also called you out as.
What's interesting to me is, nobody on this forum (besides you) has ever called me an idiot that I'm aware of -- but many other people here have called you this and similar terms. Even so, you never even have the dignity to admit you're wrong when proven so, or even so much as offer to "agree to disagree." Therefore I think I know who to take seriously and who not to.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Terry, I'm looking forward to the day you get banned from this forum. We've seen at least a few people push their luck a little too far and get blocked over it.
Oh now come on, it's too much fun winning arguments, I mean having debates with him! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-26-2014, 02:28 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
You must be bipolar or something. You insult people who disagree with you even when you are proven wrong, and you claim not to like name-calling, but then you go do it yourself. You repeatedly post for no other apparent reason than to stir people up, which makes you a troll, which many people here have also called you out as.
Let's call it the Terryette Syndrome. The uncontrolled urge to peddle bullshit, insult everybody who disagrees with it, without actually defending it with plausible arguments and not having the balls to admit you're wrong.
If you would be his shrink, he would be one heck of a goldmine.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 09-26-2014, 05:35 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Any professional needs to do his job correctly whether the customer notices it or not. It's not the customer's job to "give a shit", notice or whatever you want to call it. If he is only going to do work based solely on what customers will notice then he needs to find another line of work or just go on welfare or something. Compromise, particularly when it isn't necessary, is unprofessional. IMHO the way 'scope is handled in d-cinema is unprofessional.
THAAAAANK YOUUUUUU!!!
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
BUT YOU STILL MISS THE POINT..the paying customer has no way to tell if a theater is truly using an anamorphic lense, this is why the audience does not give a shit.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Again, you fail to understand. The paying have no way of telling if the DCP is being shown with an anamorphic lense.
As for resolution, you are emphasizing took much on the native res, there is much more to a presentation than just resolution. Yes, resolution is important, but it is not the be all end all. The customer does not give shit about anamorphic lenses vs zoomed DCP. Nor do they have a way of telling.
NEWS FLASH: Customers SHOULDN'T HAVE to "give a shit". They are already assuming that for their very expensive ticket, they're getting the best and sadly, they're not. That is where the industry is failing. As Bobby mentioned, it is extremely unprofessional. Sadly, I don't see a magic fix either. There's always going to be something.... Theaters that do things right get more business. It's been discussed time and time again here, the customer may not even know WHY X theater is better than Y theater, just that it is. And they vote with their dollars. Whether it be THX or light not shining on the screen or proper masking...
P.S. Liemax is not the only one that uses dual projection. In fact, the nearest Liemax to me in fact does NOT, whereas the Prime screen right across the lobby DOES. I'm not saying Prime is perfect, in reality it is far from it, but it's light years better than the Liemax auditorium across the lobby. Every time I watch a movie in the Liemax aud(Which I assure you is extremely infrequently/never again) I get a skull-splitting headache. There's good reason why everyone here dislikes Liemax.
I'd choose an Atmos feature in literally any auditorium currently equipped with it over ANY digitally equipped Imax auditorium. ANY. DAY.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-26-2014, 10:35 PM:
Buck, you make some interesting points.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-26-2014, 10:35 PM:
quote: Buck Wilson
Customers SHOULDN'T HAVE to "give a shit". They are already assuming that for their very expensive ticket, they're getting the best
The idea that "people don't give a shit" also fails to take into account a lot of people who wouldn't necessarily KNOW they were getting a substandard performance:
1. Kids
2. Senior citizens who don't go to many movies
3. People who live in a rural area and don't have a nearby theater and are now experiencing 'the big screen' for the first time
4. People who have only ever been to their own town's run-down cinema and just moved to a larger city with hopefully good presentations
...and so on. Groups like the above are just ripe for being turned into habitual moviegoers -- the challenge is to give them a "wow" experience rather than a "ho-hum" one.
In other words "people don't give a shit" is just another one of those myriad generalizations that Terry likes to spew. I personally prefer to try to impress people, if at all possible, whether they "give a shit" about it or not. I think most people go to the movies in hopes they'll have a fun and memorable time, not "just another night out."
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 09-27-2014, 12:43 AM:
Absolutely Mike, you hit the nail on the head. It's a HUGE group. For example, the 10 plex I work at has ZERO competition(not even second run) for 50+ miles in ANY direction. Mind you, this is a huge market draw of 150,000+ people. I see your examples dozens of times every single day, and frankly, I'm flat out embarrassed to 'serve' them. They are getting a very sub-standard presentation/experience and I just know they won't be coming back, because why should they? There's nothing special about this place, and beyond that, there's a lot WRONG too. I literally can't stand it. I have a hard time being welcoming or even look them in the face because I know they aren't getting the presentation they deserve or even paid for.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-27-2014, 03:21 AM:
quote: Buck Wilson
P.S. Liemax is not the only one that uses dual projection. In fact, the nearest Liemax to me in fact does NOT, whereas the Prime screen right across the lobby DOES.
Hmm... interesting. Are you sure about that? Because that would have some interesting implications.
Like, how do they handle 3D? Are they seriously using a different 3D setup using something like a Z-Screen for this location?
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-30-2014, 11:17 AM:
quote:
In fact, the nearest Liemax to me in fact does NOT,
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Are they seriously using a different 3D setup using something like a Z-Screen for this location?
I guess it would be possible that the location Buck is referring to is a 15/70 MPX location. Perhaps this location does not do 3D movies. From what I understand, MPX 15/70 has long been phased out.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 09-30-2014, 03:50 PM:
I'll have to call. I'm quite certain they don't have film anymore, but I'm not 100% that it's not dual projection.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-02-2014, 06:22 AM:
It's not that it's entirely impossible, but just very unlikely. IMAX is known to be inconsistent at best. They don't even want you to know any of the technical details anymore, because people could find out it's all just smoke and mirrors.
Most Digital IMAX shows start in single-projector mode, as most theaters will play a bunch of commercials, snipes and "non-IMAX" trailers. The "IMAX approved" show usually starts with this much debated "laser aligned, shark tank enabled optimization trailer".
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-02-2014, 12:55 PM:
Buck, it is entirely possible that you watched a single projection non-IMAX feature in a digital IMAX auditorium. It rarely happens but it does on occasion.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-13-2014, 02:52 AM:
For anybody that's still interested in how such a Barco Escape setup actually looks in real life, I had the "distinct pleasure" of witnessing it first hand yesterday evening at the Kinepolis megaplex in Antwerp. Being somewhat of a testbed for Barco, they had one of their auditoria retrofitted (or, "hacked" would better fit the description) with this Escape thing. To say it was one huge pile of crap is possibly the biggest understatement of the year. There are Kinepolis folks around here, on this very forum, but I doubt they will voice their own, honest opinion about this huge stinking pile of elephant poo.
They promise more immersion, but what you get is the hallmark of anti-immersion. I will elaborate with some (crappy) pictures and more text...
Their lobby had one of these:
Take a good look, the way to the future of "immersive movie experiences", at least according to Barco.
The pre-show was already running once we finally could enter the auditorium, so the pictures I took were with the house lights dimmed and as such not very usable, but the picture below gives an impression of the concoction:
The room originally featured a rather large wall to wall, bottom to ceiling scope-dimensioned, (obviously) unmasked, slightly curved screen. What they did was obviously an enormous hack job. They bolted those two screens on the sides in front of the original screen at an angle of somewhere between 10 and 15 degrees. The part of the original screen that sticks out below has been haphazardly masked with some curtains, but a large part still sticks out on the right hand side.
As you can still see a bit on the picture, the screens are nowhere near perfectly aligned with each other. The seams between them aren't even equal between the bottom and the top, because those "side panels" are also slightly angled vertically...
The two extra projectors are mounted in some big black boxes on the ceiling. This auditorium always had a recess in the ceiling to mount lightning equipment for special shows. This recess has now been used for those projectors. They leak some light even when not showing an image, I also doubt those projectors are real DCI projectors, they probably even don't have a dowser.
The main screen in the middle loses a WHOLE LOT of surface area and now starts a whole lot higher, increasing the need to look up in the first rows. I've done some quick Photoshoping and superimposed the dimensions of the original screen:
Those ugly side panels stopped around where the first row of seats start. The first four rows of seats had their left and right seats blocked off, as you would be looking at the side of one of those panels otherwise. There is no possibility to sit in a position where those panels actually cover your left and right field of view.
We were sitting in row 7 of 17, that's still a few rows below the middle of the auditorium and it would give you a nice, "immersive" field of view if the original screen would still be used to its full potential. But right at this position, the picture already felt small. Like sitting in the back row of an auditorium with a somewhat undersized screen... So much for this added immersion thing.
After a lengthy pre-show, filled with commercials and trailers, projected on screen like some business presentation (the content did not even fill the full height of the screen) and an advertorial (not in Escape format) about the greatness we were about to experience, the show finally started.
It started with... nothing really. We were left staring at the result of three DLP projectors leaking light on three panels in front of us. This grey-fest continued for about a minute or two, and then the show finally started.
The obvious issues became immediately clear. In Europe, all Fox presentations start with a lengthy copyright notice: Big white, super bold letters on a black background, getting you in the right mood by threatening you with jail time. The amount of ambient light bouncing off off those side panels was completely insane and almost insulting.
The first scene of the movie starts in an elevator. This scene is also one of the few scenes that uses the Barco Escape format. The side panels were used to project some bad, CGI images (computer in-game graphics quality) that only loosely matched those on the main screen. The elevator started shaking, but those images did not. My girlfriend later told me that those unmatched pictures even made her feel a bit nauseous. Maybe that's the immersion Barco and Fox are looking for?
It was immediately clear that those projectors on the ceiling where absolutely NO MATCH for the main projector in the back in regards of brightness. The pictures looked washed out, especially compared to the main picture. Just another entry to the long list of distractions.
After a few seconds of "Barco Escapeness", a whole lot of minutes follow without anything being projected on those panels. But those huge, gray-glowing panels are obviously always there, in their fully unmasked glory. Like I told you before, they reflect HUGE amounts of ambient light, they constantly remind you of being there and bringing nothing to the table.
So, after about a minute or 15, a few seconds of Barco Escape is flashed at you during a flashback/dream scene. The images on those side panels have close to nothing to do with the images on screen. They're just random, washed out junk based on the main image... It's nothing but distraction. This whole "format" is nothing but distraction and it needs to DIE before someone actually gets the idea this is a feasible way of grabbing some extra cash.
The people that were sitting beside us, also complained about the fact that the screen was now so small. Although they had reserved seats, they moved to the unused seats in row #3. I cannot blame them, as this shit is so distracting, it's hard to follow the movie this way.
Those ugly grey panels sticking out on the side, the small main picture and the totally useless, washed out pictures that were sometimes flashed on the side panels freaked me out so much, I had to leave about halfway through the movie. I really couldn't stand it anymore and neither my girlfriend, who was happy I was the one that proposed to leave.
Yeah, maybe I was pretty much biased, as I didn't like the idea from the start. But, I tried to be honest here, I really did. At least the first few minutes, I managed to put my bias largely aside, but it's just impossible to ignore the utter bullcrap that this Barco Escape really is.
This really left me thinking: What are they going to do with this auditorium once this Maze Runner-run is over? Are they seriously planning to show other, non-escape movies in this utter hack of an auditorium?!
Posted by Mike Rivest (Member # 5500) on 10-28-2014, 05:03 PM:
Ripoff version of Cinerama I say. ![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
I think they did something like this at EXPO 67 here in Montreal. Will have to look into it.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-01-2015, 05:47 PM:
I heard they were touting this thing at CinemaCon again this year -- did anyone see that promo and how was it received?
Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 05-01-2015, 07:26 PM:
I saw a demo of screen X this year. Six projectors on each side bringing the image up the side walls. Puts it at odds with the new sound formats with the speaker placment. It is interesting in some cases but a distraction in a lot. The light gray walls are not as reflective as the regular screen. The side images were just murk in low light situations.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2