Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Movie-Theater Chains Take On IMAX

This is topic Movie-Theater Chains Take On IMAX in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=006925

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-13-2013, 09:31 PM:

Here is a great article, the author makes a good point in asking what happens to the contracts once the IMAX contracts run out. I never knew that the big chains had a chance to unite under one common brand name, I think a studio/common name would of been a real thorn in the side IMAX.

It is really nice to see the mainstream press tackle the subject.

Movie-Theater Chains Take On IMAX

Rival Movie Chains Invest in Oversize Screens, Enhanced Sound, Luxury Seats

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304202204579254453051597642

A battle for the bigger screen is brewing between IMAX Corp. IMX.T -0.53% and U.S. movie-theater chains.

Over the past four years, North America's five major theater companies have been retrofitting their auditoriums or building new ones with oversized screens that add several extra dollars to the ticket price. That is giving IMAX, the dominant player in premium movie-going, fresh competition from the very theater chains it depends on for business.

The trend is coming into sharp focus for Hollywood now because in coming months the number of chain-operated large-format screens is on pace to equal all 339 IMAX locations in the U.S. All these screens usually stretch floor to ceiling in auditoriums with enhanced sound and extra-cushy seats, offering what some moviegoers consider the best viewing experience for Hollywood's biggest blockbusters.

Of the $161.1 million grossed last month during the opening weekend of "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" from Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. LGF -1.74% , about $9.6 million was collected from private-label screens run by the theaters. That was only about $3 million less than domestic IMAX locations generated.

This weekend, "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" from Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros. will premiere on virtually all of the country's so-called premium large format, or PLF, screens—IMAX and private label alike.

Studios and exhibitors stand to gain millions of dollars by cutting IMAX out of the box-office equation. Ontario-based IMAX gets fees from theaters and studios that amount to about a third of the box-office receipts collected from theaters using its technology. Exhibitors typically hand over about 20% and studios pitch in 12.5% of the ticket price, excluding taxes. Some older contracts even allocate a portion of concession-stand sales to IMAX.

"The distribution and exhibition dynamic is much simpler when there are only two parties involved," says Chris Aronson, president of domestic distribution at 21st Century Fox Inc.'s Twentieth Century Fox, which until recently was part of the same company as The Wall Street Journal.

IMAX says the theater-operated brands try to replicate its signature moviegoing experience without delivering the goods. "It's like putting a Mercedes on a Ford body and saying you have a Mercedes," says Chief Executive Richard Gelfond.

IMAX has invested tens of millions of dollars of research into its technology, he says, and two of 2014's big movies, "Transformers: Age of Extinction" and "Interstellar," are being filmed with cameras designed to play best in an IMAX theater.

The chains vary in how aggressively they are pursuing the proprietary big-screen strategy. Some have all but stopped adding new IMAX contracts. Others are placing their private-label screens near existing IMAX theaters. Some are building new locations with IMAX and their own big-screen offerings under the same roof.

The nascent market is an alphabet soup of brand names: XD at Cinemark Holdings Inc., CNK -0.09% RPX at Regal Entertainment Group, RGC +0.72% ETX and Prime at AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc., UltraAVX at Cineplex Inc. and the BigD at Carmike Cinemas Inc. The companies have had to lean on Hollywood to include their logos in movie ads to build a semblance of IMAX's brand awareness. The chains rebuffed past suggestions that they unite under a common name that would make advertising easier.

The big question now is: Will theaters renew their IMAX contracts when they come up for renewal starting in 2017.

The tension has its roots in the film industry's recent conversion to digital distribution. When studios started delivering movies digitally rather than in bulky film canisters, it became easier to build auditoriums with sound and lighting architecture for large-format viewing.

"There was enough off-the-shelf technology that, if you knew how to put it together, you could create your own PLF experience," says Timothy Warner, chief executive at Cinemark.

Cinemark has been the most aggressive in building out its own large-format theaters, reaching 145 locations in the U.S. and South America since its first XD theater opened in West Plano, Texas, in 2009. It still operates some IMAX theaters, but it has brought on only two new ones since it started the XD rollout four years ago.

New Cinemark XD theaters cost about $200,000 to build. Retrofitting an existing one, which requires moving exit doors and lowering the theater's front rows so the image isn't projected on moviegoers' heads—costs about $600,000.

IMAX says it has contracted or constructed theaters in nearly 80% of the U.S. markets it has identified as potential locations. It has had significant growth overseas, including in China, where the company last year successfully sued a state-backed projection company called DMAX for trademark infringement.

IMAX expects to make about 60% of its 2014 revenue overseas, Mr. Gelfond says.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-14-2013, 09:16 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
"It's like putting a Mercedes on a Ford body and saying you have a Mercedes," says Chief Executive Richard Gelfond.

Funny ... Isn't that exactly what he did by putting the Imax name on Christie and Barco projectors?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-14-2013, 10:17 AM:

Good one, Adam.
[thumbsup]

First of all, there's nothing "large format" about these big screen digital projection theaters. It doesn't matter if the theater carries the IMAX brand or is labeled with another acronym. Leave it to the press to not understand the difference between a regular commercial movie theater and a true, large format special venue theater.

I don't know the exact count, but it looks to me like the major theater chains already outnumber IMAX branded screens with their own house brand big screen concepts. Regal has more big screen houses labeled RPX than IMAX screens. Cinemark has more XD labeled screens than it does IMAX screens. Carmike has more BigD screens than IMAX screens.

quote: Wall Street Journal
IMAX has invested tens of millions of dollars of research into its technology, he says, and two of 2014's big movies, "Transformers: Age of Extinction" and "Interstellar," are being filmed with cameras designed to play best in an IMAX theater.

Of course the writer for the WSJ fails to mention the details of movies like Interstellar having significant portions filmed with IMAX 15/65mm film cameras and that it requires a 15-perf 70mm film-based projection system for viewers to see the difference. Most IMAX-branded theaters don't have that kind of capability even though they carry the name synonymous with large format film.

quote: Wall Street Journal
New Cinemark XD theaters cost about $200,000 to build. Retrofitting an existing one, which requires moving exit doors and lowering the theater's front rows so the image isn't projected on moviegoers' heads—costs about $600,000.

A real, large format film-based theater costs millions of dollars to build.

The biggest problem I have with all these in-house "private label" big screen concepts is lack of technical information. Customers have a hard time finding out just what kind of equipment is in the booth. Is the big screen theater using two digital projectors or only one? What is the resolution of the projector(s)? What kind of sound format and sound system configuration is used?

Customers can, if they like, figure out just what is being used by an IMAX-branded theater. It's not easy, but infomration is available. IMAX' digital systems are, for the most part, indentical: they have dual digital projector systems and the same kind of sound system.

AFAIK, Cinemark's XD concept is really only a single projector setup, based on their web site's verbiage of XD theaters using "a Barco projector." They're installing the Auro 3D 11.1 sound format in some XD theaters, but it's not clear which ones. The web sites for Barco and Auro have no Auro 3D 11.1 theater installation lists. One XD theater in Plano, TX is equipped with Dolby Atmos. Dolby does have a theater map showing installs for various Dolby d-cinema technologies, including Atmos.

If Regal followed through on what it said in its first press releases about RPX we could be led to believe their RPX theaters feature dual digital projectors. Some have Auro 3D 11.1 sound systems, while at least a dozen or more have Dolby Atmos. There's likely more than a few RPX theaters wired for regular 5.1 or 7.1.

We practically need a feature comparison table for all these big screen digital theaters. Perhaps if such a comparison table was easily accessible to the public it might force some companies who are trying to build big screen, premium priced theaters on the cheap to improve to a better standard. The lack of curtains and masking in many of these theaters is a serious problem.

quote: Wall Street Journal
The chains rebuffed past suggestions that they unite under a common name that would make advertising easier.

Because that would require them to adhere to some consistent standards -standard the public might understand more easily, such as using two digital projectors instead of one, perhaps supporting 4K instead of 2K and maybe using other better quality things that would end up costing them more money to build/install and maintain.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-14-2013, 11:43 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
lowering the theater's front rows so the image isn't projected on moviegoers' heads

Oh that sounds like a great idea. [Roll Eyes]

With the old setup, watching a movie would be like standing on the ground and trying to see something in an upstairs window. Now it'll be like trying to see a skyscraper from the sidewalk.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 12-14-2013, 02:38 PM:

in all fairness to the 'Hunger Games: Catching Fire' - the fact that most of the games sequence was shot in actual 4:3 IMAX 'film' was a positive - it made me want to re-see this as it was originally shot and in a proper IMAX 15/70 venue.

the larger specialty screens may have the upper hand when it comes to actual 4K projectors and 7.1/Dolby Atmos setups - 5.0 IMAX sound in my mind is inferior to how far sound technology has become.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-14-2013, 11:19 PM:

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
5.0 IMAX sound in my mind is inferior to how far sound technology has become

I think they are all good, you really can't go wrong with any of the premium system. Just as important is the theatre design and construction, the purpose built IMAX theatre close to me is no different than the larger IMAX venues built before the digital conversion or MPX auditoriums, yes it is now digital but the layout still counts for something, I don't mind the true IMAX lay out and nobody else gets you as close to the screen as IMAX. Too bad 15/70 has been phased out in my area, and most IMAX retrofits are not all that great.

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
larger specialty screens may have the upper hand when it comes to actual 4K projectors and 7.1/Dolby Atmos

You make a very good point however I still don't think the quality control is there yet. I have no idea who has a 4K projector in my area, and I doubt it will ever be advertised. Also, when I was at the Hobbit 2 opening night, Cineplex was advertising Hobbit 2 in UltraAVX with Dolby Atmos, well just after the trailer for AVX hit the screen which told everyone that they were in an immersive environment with digital picture and such, the Dolby Surround 7.1 trailer then hit the screen and let everyone know that the sound is over here, and here, and over here. So much for quality control?

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
in all fairness to the 'Hunger Games: Catching Fire' - the fact that most of the games sequence was shot in actual 4:3 IMAX 'film' was a positive - it made me want to re-see this as it was originally shot and in a proper IMAX 15/70 venue.

No argument there.

quote: Adam Martin
Funny ... Isn't that exactly what he did by putting the Imax name on Christie and Barco projectors?

Good point. IMAX modifies the digital projectors in Mississauga, how much they actually modify must be a trade secret [Wink]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-17-2013, 09:23 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I think they are all good, you really can't go wrong with any of the premium system.

I disagree. There is a lot of variables that go into a truly great movie theater and one with state of the art presentation technology. It's one thing for a theater to pat itself on the back for being better than average or great. When they tack a surcharge onto the standard ticket price for customers enter that room they damned sure need to have some specific reasons readily accessible to customers to justify that higher price.

Right now, it's not clear if many of these LieMAX wannabe theaters are nothing more than a bigger room with the sound turned up louder. I think a bunch of customers are getting screwed. I already question the ticket value at IMAX Digital theaters; brighter dual projector 3D is the only advantage I see in them. But at least you know you're getting dual projector 3D.

It's obvious to me at least some or possibly most of these LieMAX wannabe theaters are doing giant screen 3D with only a single projector and not showing an acceptably bright image. Not all have next generation sound formats like Dolby Atmos or Auro 3D 11.1. And even if they do have Atmos or Auro 3D it's not clear how far they went with the configuration. I've already seen complaints about the audio in one Atmos theater being very different than another. For instance AMC and Regal are apparently treating Dolby Atmos very differently in their respective ETX and RPX auditoriums.

Most of these theaters are missing out on key basics for the screen that used to be standard equipment, namely masking and curtains. IMHO, a movie theater has a construction not finished appearance without the masking and curtains. The movies don't look as good either without those finishing details.

With all of these theaters charging a price premium they deserve to be put under a microscope to see where they are coming up short and to see how they compare with each other.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 12-17-2013, 12:17 PM:

We saw this happen with THX.

Exhibitors have discovered:

1. Acronyms serve the dual purpose of providing a "catchy" brand name for the "experience" without offering much in the way of explaining what the heck it is.

2. The plethora of acronyms may create confusion between the premium brands, but they do the job of vaguely suggesting differentiation from "generic." That's all. Nobody cares about the difference between RPX and IMAX. All they care about is that it's "better than average."

3. The simple act of raising the cost of admission lends a "halo effect" to a branded experience.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-17-2013, 12:59 PM:

One big difference with THX: choosing to see a movie in a THX-certified auditorium didn't result in a surcharge being tacked onto the ticket price. THX didn't cost extra.

I had no problem paying extra to see a filmed in IMAX movie in an IMAX movie theater. The filmmaking process cost a lot more, the prints cost a lot more and the 15/70 theaters were really expensive to build. It was a far different movie-going experience.

That isn't really true for these Lie-MAX style theaters. In most cases you're seeing the same 2K resolution movie file projected on bigger screen with 5.1 or 7.1 sound with the volume knob cranked higher. The theater operators are trying to call it "large format" when that simply is not true.

Other industries have come under fire from groups like the Better Business Bureau, Consumer Reports, etc. for false advertising. If the offense is bad enough industry members may be called to the carpet in front of a congressional subcommittee to explain themselves.

I'm not saying anything like that is going to happen in this case, but something needs to happen to disclose just what is in the booth of these so-called large format theaters. They not all being built and equipped to any consistent "large format" standard.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-17-2013, 05:47 PM:

Liemax deserves this. As much as I would prefer seeing a real large format system, as long as ImAX thought it could get away with this liemax crap, I welcome seeing them lose money to competing systems like RPX, or whatever. I saw Gravity in RPX Dolby Atmos and it seemed no worse than Liemax. I hope all the chains put Imax out of business for their cynical business move of moving to Liemax.

As far as a common banner, I don't see a need for chains to do that. They just need to standardize their large format screens and market that to the public as something better than what the other chains offer.

Posted by Jason McMillan (Member # 5542) on 12-17-2013, 08:56 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
THX didn't cost extra.

FWIW Santikos Theatres here in Texas doesn't charge more for their "AVX" branded theatres. For instance, their Palladium AVX 22 theatre in West Houston has 6 Dolby Atmos screens (AVX MAX), the others are Barco Auro 11.1 (so they claim, I'm not sure how Auro works, but I did see Dolby CP750s in their sound racks for the non-atmos screens). Keep in mind this theatre bills itself as "AVX" on all screens. The price of admission is just $10.00 for an evening 2D adult ticket ($13.00 3D). AFAIK every auditorium is a 1-projector 4k Barco. At their Silverado Tomball theatre, their two AVX theatres with Atmos are the same price as the other screens, save the IMAX theatre in the same complex which is more expensive. Small chain, but they seem to get it (although they love those Freestyle machines).

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-17-2013, 09:54 PM:

quote: Jason McMillan
FWIW Santikos Theatres here in Texas doesn't charge more for their "AVX" branded theatres.

Hi Jason, good observation. However you can also look at it this way, all of the non-AVX or IMAX locations are around $8 for all seats in the building, every seat at a AVX location regardless if it is AVX or not is $10, so in a way they are charging extra at AVX locations. I am not sure what the average ticket price is in Texas.

Anyways, good eye it looks like Santikos is a pretty good circuit.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-17-2013, 10:06 PM:

Santikos' AVX houses in their newest theaters are the smaller, more standard auditoriums. They only carry the AVX acronym because they feature wall to wall, floor to ceiling screens with no masking and look like a trampoline mounted to the wall.

Santikos' AVX MAX houses, the ones with Dolby Atmos or Auro 11.1, do charge a premium above the standard ticket price.

Santikos may be a good theater chain, but they didn't have their A-game on display when my girlfriend and I visited their newest theater West of Houston last May. We watched the latest Star Trek movie there. The AVX house showing it had the center channel blown, and this was a theater that had just opened two weeks prior to our visit. No Auro 11.1 either. This was standard 5.1 or 7.1 audio. I did want to see the Star Trek movie in Atmos there, but some new animated movie took up ALL of the available Atmos equipped screens.
[Mad]

Posted by John Roddy (Member # 7348) on 12-17-2013, 10:44 PM:

Santikos doesn't charge a premium for any of the AVX houses, not even AVX MAX. Ticket prices are $10 for 2D & $13 for 3D consistently across all of the flagship locations (a.k.a. both Silverados and both Palladiums). The only premiums charged are for IMAX ($14 2D or 3D) and D-BOX ($18).

Also, the regular AVX screens at Palladium AVX are equipped with Dolby CP750's. I believe some of them might have some USL processors instead, but I don't remember for sure. The Palladium IMAX in San Antonio is the one that has both Atmos and Auro. I'm not aware of any other theater out there that's managed to get both under the same roof.

Posted by Jason McMillan (Member # 5542) on 12-18-2013, 06:58 PM:

quote: John Roddy
some USL processors instead

I can't speak for the Houston Palladium, but I do know when I went to see The Book Thief at their Tomball Silverado location, they played the Dolby Countdown logo and peering into the booth there surely was a dolby sound processor. I mention this because it opened in their smallest auditorium (to my knowledge). It was maybe 100 seats.. and i usually expect lower cost equipment in the smaller houses.

And as for ticket prices, just down the street AMC Willowbrook 24 charges $10/2D $12.50/3D for their shows (and they do not have any imax/etx at that theatre), and also in the same pocket is a Movie Tavern for $8/2D $10.75/3D. That being said, $10 - $11 is about average in Houston for the larger chains. Cinemark does have a few that are cheaper, $7.00 range at 290, and $4.50 for first run at their theatre in Texas City. Interestingly, AMC Spring 10, about 12 miles away from Willowbrook, is (to my knowledge) the only first-run showing 35mm is $8.75.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 12-18-2013, 08:27 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I disagree. There is a lot of variables that go into a truly great movie theater and one with state of the art presentation technology. It's one thing for a theater to pat itself on the back for being better than average or great. When they tack a surcharge onto the standard ticket price for customers enter that room they damned sure need to have some specific reasons readily accessible to customers to justify that higher price.

Right now, it's not clear if many of these LieMAX wannabe theaters are nothing more than a bigger room with the sound turned up louder. I think a bunch of customers are getting screwed. I already question the ticket value at IMAX Digital theaters; brighter dual projector 3D is the only advantage I see in them. But at least you know you're getting dual projector 3D.

It's obvious to me at least some or possibly most of these LieMAX wannabe theaters are doing giant screen 3D with only a single projector and not showing an acceptably bright image. Not all have next generation sound formats like Dolby Atmos or Auro 3D 11.1. And even if they do have Atmos or Auro 3D it's not clear how far they went with the configuration. I've already seen complaints about the audio in one Atmos theater being very different than another. For instance AMC and Regal are apparently treating Dolby Atmos very differently in their respective ETX and RPX auditoriums.

Most of these theaters are missing out on key basics for the screen that used to be standard equipment, namely masking and curtains. IMHO, a movie theater has a construction not finished appearance without the masking and curtains. The movies don't look as good either without those finishing details.

With all of these theaters charging a price premium they deserve to be put under a microscope to see where they are coming up short and to see how they compare with each other.

I think AMC Rio's IMAX-Digital "small" screen is making up for this discrepancies by upping the audio to levels that made my ears want to bleed (while watching/enduring 'Titanic' in 2012)

I know I've stated this aspects before in the past, but Tyson's ETX screen's volume is so loud, that it overshadows/masks important audio cues, notably over the head sound, only recently heard to amazing effect in 'Frozen'.

The Atmos system on the RPX screen (at Regal Kingstowne) mercilessly lowers the volume to much more reasonable levels and as a result the audience can finally hear more pinpoint audio localization - 'Gravity's' mix truly was astounding as to how and where mixers can utilize multi speakers to excellent effect.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-18-2013, 09:37 PM:

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
The Atmos system on the RPX screen (at Regal Kingstowne) mercilessly lowers the volume to much more reasonable levels and as a result the audience can finally hear more pinpoint audio localization

I will give Atmos that. The theatre in my area that has Atmos sounds good, but it also sounds good in 7.1 Dolby surround. I am skeptical if Atmos is enough to bring people out to see a movie because it is Atmos, I think people choose AVX because of the reserved seating and wall to wall screen.

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
'Gravity's' mix truly was astounding as to how and where mixers can utilize multi speakers to excellent effect.

Gravity indeed sounded good in Atmos, but it also sounded good in every other format I heard it in, it had a good sound mix so that counts for half of it. I expect an Oscar nom for sound.

quote: John Roddy
Santikos doesn't charge a premium for any of the AVX houses, not even AVX MAX.

All seats at a Santikos AVX location are higher than all seats at a non AVX location. So they kind of roll it into all of the ticket prices at the AVX location?

Posted by Jason McMillan (Member # 5542) on 12-18-2013, 11:31 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
All seats at a Santikos AVX location are higher than all seats at a non AVX location. So they kind of roll it into all of the ticket prices at the AVX location?

Santikos Silverado Tomball, $10 (all except the IMAX screen, including the two AVX auditoriums). Next closest competing theatre, AMC Willowbrook 24, $10. No Imax or ETX.

Santikos Palladium West Houston, $10 (all AVX complex with 6 AVX max auditoriums). Next closest competing theatres, Cinemark 19 Katy $9.25 (and $12 for their XD screen), AMC Katy Mills 20, $9.75 (no IMAX, no ETX), AMC First Colony 24 $10, and $12.50 for their IMAX screen.

Santikos is average price in this market for their Houston theatres. For example Cinemark in Texas City is $4.50 (yes, $4.50) for first run, and Cinemark in Webster just 10 miles away which is $10... You know as well as I do that market drives cost, and honestly, when seeing a movie on a larger screen at AMC or Cinemark is typically $2 to $4 (evening) more than Santikos evening price all the time... (which again, is average for the Houston market) ... I think your statement is a little unfair.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-19-2013, 10:38 AM:

I really thought the AVX MAX screens at the Palladium AVX theater in West Houston cost extra above the standard ticket price to enter. Since they're charging a flat $10 price, in suburban Houston, that turns out to be a fairly good deal.

It's too bad Santikos can't take the approach of Warren Theaters and actually use masking or at least curtains in its theaters (including the IMAX Digital theaters).

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I am skeptical if Atmos is enough to bring people out to see a movie because it is Atmos, I think people choose AVX because of the reserved seating and wall to wall screen.

Terry, you just can't pass up any opportunity to piss on Dolby Atmos can you? I'll bet you would be a huge Atmos fan if your beloved IMAX dumped its conventional sound format and adopted Atmos.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Gravity indeed sounded good in Atmos, but it also sounded good in every other format I heard it in, it had a good sound mix so that counts for half of it. I expect an Oscar nom for sound.

What the mixers did with Gravity in Dolby Atmos is simply impossible with conventional 7.1 surround. The only way an Atmos-equipped theater's presentation of Gravity would be on par with conventional 5.1 or 7.1 audio is if the theater tried to do Atmos on the cheap (not separately amplifying enough speakers) and/or their sound system had operational problems. I've heard 7.1 surround done very well but the Atmos mix of Gravity was on an entirely different plateau above that.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-19-2013, 12:04 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Terry, you just can't pass up any opportunity to piss on Dolby Atmos can you? I'll bet you would be a huge Atmos fan if your beloved IMAX dumped its conventional sound format and adopted Atmos.

Bobby, I am very skeptical that Dolby Atmos will do much to bring in audiences, can we just leave it at that? Can you accept that I just don't see audiences going crazy for it long term.

My theatre couldn't even get the Dolby trailer right for the opening night of the Hobbit 2. They ran the 7.1 Dolby Surround trailer but in the past they have run the correct promo trailer, so this is just the start of my local theatre pissing off customers who wanted to see it in Atmos.

I also think the marketing sucks for Atmos. "Sound Revolutionized" on a orange oval cardboard decal leaves a lot to be desired.

And "Hear the whole picture" achieves exactly what? Those who were there on opening night and were expecting Atmos got a dose of 7.1 Surround, or did they in fact get Atmos.

The one thing I do like about Atmos is that it does sound different than IMAX, it has good quality sound to it. I like that it is different from IMAX, while I could care less about the roof mounted speakers I do like how there are supposed to be more speakers behind the screen.

In contrast to IMAX, every DMR movie for some reason or another sounds the same as every other IMAX movie. IMAX must modify their mix to make it sound similar. I don't have any problem with the rear speaker lay out in an IMAX theatre but not having any extra speakers behind the screen is not good.

Bobby, you might not like IMAX, I have no problem with it, the sound from the Niagara 15/70 theatre was pretty freaking awesome. The digital IMAX systems are pretty consistent however some of the conversions are using the older 15/70 speakers and not the new digital speakers they use for new installations.

quote: Bobby Henderson
What the mixers did with Gravity in Dolby Atmos is simply impossible with conventional 7.1 surround. The only way an Atmos-equipped theater's presentation of Gravity would be on par with conventional 5.1 or 7.1 audio is if the theater tried to do Atmos on the cheap (not separately amplifying enough speakers) and/or their sound system had operational problems. I've heard 7.1 surround done very well but the Atmos mix of Gravity was on an entirely different plateau above that.

Like I said, Gravity sounded good in Atmos, but it also sounded good in other formats as well. Gravity sounded good because it was a good mix to begin with, not because it played for you in Atmos.

Posted by Jason McMillan (Member # 5542) on 12-19-2013, 01:23 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
It's too bad Santikos can't take the approach of Warren Theaters and actually use masking or at least curtains in its theaters (including the IMAX Digital theaters).

While I agree with you there, in my opinion, it's better than this weird floating screen thing that Edwards did at West Oaks Mall Stadium 14.. see Scott Neff's photos here to see what I mean:

http://www.cinematour.com/picview.php?db=us&id=80445

and

http://www.cinematour.com/picview.php?db=us&id=80444

I dont know if they do this in all their RPX auditoriums or not, but man that seems like it'd be distracting.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-19-2013, 03:23 PM:

quote: Jason McMillan
While I agree with you there, in my opinion, it's better than this weird floating screen thing that Edwards did at West Oaks Mall Stadium 14.. see Scott Neff's photos here to see what I mean

Those theater screen photos remind me of that Philips HDTV screen that had the colored LEDs on its ends. It was supposed to reflect colors from whatever video was being played on the wall behind the TV set. AFAIK they don't sell those TV sets anymore.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, I am very skeptical that Dolby Atmos will do much to bring in audiences, can we just leave it at that?

The problem is you refuse to leave it at that. You keep passing off your pessimistic opinion of Dolby Atmos as fact. You keep making ignorant statements like "no one cares about Atmos" when you have no business speaking for anyone else but yourself. If you don't like me calling you on that bullshit then stop doing it.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
My theatre couldn't even get the Dolby trailer right for the opening night of the Hobbit 2.

How is this Dolby's fault? This sounds like an issue of a theater manager or booth operator not giving enough of a damn about details to do his job right.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I also think the marketing sucks for Atmos.

I can agree with you to some degree on that. Dolby's Unfold and Amaze Atmos trailers are great. However the advertising for Atmos outside of the theater, such as movie marketing materials is downright dismal.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
And "Hear the whole picture" achieves exactly what? Those who were there on opening night and were expecting Atmos got a dose of 7.1 Surround, or did they in fact get Atmos.

Again, that sounds like a problem with the specific movie theater and the people running it. Not Dolby or its Atmos format.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Like I said, Gravity sounded good in Atmos, but it also sounded good in other formats as well. Gravity sounded good because it was a good mix to begin with, not because it played for you in Atmos.

I have doubts you even saw Gravity in a theater playing it in Atmos. Because if you did, and were honest about the experience, you would admit there was a lot of sound placement and panning effects in the Atmos mix that would be simply impossible to do in a conventional 7.1 mix. The 7.1 mix of Gravity is not equal at all to its Atmos mixed counterpart.

If you did indeed see Gravity in Atmos maybe there's a slim chance the theater where you saw it cut corners and did as little as they could in terms of separately amplifying surround speakers. Considering the overall cost for Atmos it wouldn't make much sense for a theater to spend all that money for a Dolby CP850 (and the installation services from Dolby) to only cheap out on the back end with amplifiers.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-19-2013, 04:01 PM:

Bobby, now that you have all that off your chest, let's move on.

@Jason, those are some pretty interesting pictures of that floating screen. I assume that the blue light is off after the trailers?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-19-2013, 08:26 PM:

I saw Gravity in a LieMax theater, and then I saw it in my own theater. I thought the sound was just about as good in plain old Dolby 5.1. I did not see it in Atmos -- we were in Boise at the time and I don't think (or I don't know about, at least) any Atmos installations there.

Dolby has good marketing materials, but in deployment they outright suck. You just about have to pull teeth (or have a Film-tech buddy with an inside track) to get any marketing materials, and we all know how the Dolby logo is getting smaller and smaller or disappearing outright from one-sheets.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-20-2013, 11:53 AM:

Mike, Dolby's web site has a map showing Atmos installations. I don't know how often they update it, but it looks like the Grand Theater in Bismarck, ND is the nearest place to you with at least one Atmos-equipped screen. Boise, ID has one Atmos theater as well: the Village at Meridian Cinema 15.

One thing I don't like about Dolby's Atmos map is it doesn't list how many screens in a multiplex are equipped. For instance, the Santikos Palladium AVX theater West of Houston has at least 4 Atmos equipped screens. Look Cinemas in Dallas has 2 Atmos screens.

I think one of the biggest things hurting Dolby's marketing efforts is the decline of the newspaper -particularly the "stack ads" and theater directories where the Dolby name would appear so often during the 1980's and 1990's. Then again, they also appeared to be making a bigger marketing effort during that time as well.

There is no Internet equivalent of the newspaper stack ad -where various theaters in a region can be measured against each other in at least some kind of basic way to see how each is showing a certain movie. There is a lot of sound & projection variables in digital cinema that aren't being clearly disclosed to the movie-going public.

If the movie has a 4K DCP which theaters are showing it in 4K? It's almost impossible to find out that specific detail in advance. You literally have to know what projection gear is in the booth. Which theaters are showing the movie in 7.1 surround as opposed to 5.1? Again, that isn't easy to tell before visiting the theater. If the movie is in 3D, which process is being used? I have to visit Dolby's web site to see which upcoming movies are mixed in Atmos and then look at Dolby's map to see which theaters have Atmos.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Dolby has good marketing materials, but in deployment they outright suck.

Dolby needs to make a better effort of distributing marketing materials to theaters and getting those theaters to use the materials properly. If a theater goes to the trouble of installing Dolby Atmos they ought to at least have some posters for one-sheet cases. As much as Atmos costs a stand-ee might be appropriate. I've seen a few Atmos movies at the Harkins Bricktown 16 theater in Oklahoma City, but I can't recall ever seeing any Dolby posters, such as ones promoting Atmos, in any poster cases.

It shouldn't be a problem for Dolby to let theaters download trailers that support their specific cinema process, be it DD Cinema, Surround 7.1, D3D or Atmos. The movie theaters ought to be using those trailers too. I roll my eyes when I hear of an Atmos-equipped theater not playing an Atmos trailer before the show. With 35mm, I could understand a theater not bothering to put a Dolby Digital snipe on the print; they had to remember to remove it before moving it to a non-DD house. There is no excuse with d-cinema. It's EASY to put the trailer in the play list or remove it. I wonder if Dolby's new "Dolby Connect" service would allow Dolby to do that remotely.

I don't know what Dolby can do to get its name more prominently displayed on movie poster one sheets, TV commercials, etc. other than paying the movie studios to do so. Obviously IMAX and RealD must be doing that. At least some theater chains are displaying the Atmos brand more prominently on their web sites. That's a start.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 12-21-2013, 08:15 AM:

This sounds like it could be the death of IMAX. Too bad they moved away from 15/70 film. It was THE thing that made them special. Now with digital crud, they are no longer special, and anyone can build a theater that will do the same thing as a lieMAX theater. IMAX's decision to go digital was made based on GREED. Greed is a very negative emotion. Any time you use emotions to make a decision, you are not using intellect. IMAX made a stupid, greed based decision. Bye, bye IMAX.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-21-2013, 05:48 PM:

Bruce, while I do agree IMAX digital is nowhere near the power of IMAX 15/70, we have to realistic, the death of IMAX was about to happen about 10 years ago, it was their move to digital that has allowed it to grow and become what it is now. Yes it sucks that 15/70 is gone, but I don't see the death of IMAX anytime soon.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-21-2013, 06:06 PM:

I don't begrudge the intelligence of IMAX to survive,just the cold pull of the plug on 15/70 and the attitude of not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth regarding the IMAX experience.
This at a time when Batman was putting the potential of true IMAX in the spotlight. [Frown]

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-22-2013, 11:50 AM:

Victor, I totally agree with what you are saying, but I also think that it really is time for people to move on from bitching about the downgrade to digital IMAX, it has been five years now and it appears the general public don't really care. I simply cannot watch IMAX in 15/70 in my local area, we used to have three 15/70 locations within 20 minutes driving and they have now all been changed-over to digital. It would of been nice to be able to see IMAX in 15/70 at these locations for the special occasion like the way they did Dark Knight, but that is not going to happen. Despite the change to digital, I do find benefit in the brighter image from two projectors, the consistent sound and image across digital IMAX locations and being closer to the screen with reserved seating. My location is a purpose built location not like those multiplex retrofits.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-22-2013, 06:34 PM:

I believe the omni max at the ontario science centre is still 15/70

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-23-2013, 10:46 AM:

quote: Bruce Hansen
This sounds like it could be the death of IMAX. Too bad they moved away from 15/70 film. It was THE thing that made them special. Now with digital crud, they are no longer special, and anyone can build a theater that will do the same thing as a lieMAX theater.

Exactly. Momentum is gaining with the construction of these like-LieMAX theaters. The theater chains are taking a page from IMAX' marketing play book, building these acronym-labeled big screen theaters without being clear to the public about how they're being equipped. They have opportunities to cut corners yet make customers feel like they're buying a product just like IMAX digital when the premium priced house may be no different than a standard theater. Single projector 3D and 5.1 sound, but with a bigger screen and louder volume.

IMAX is at a horrible disadvantage in this situation.

IMAX can't call the public's attention to any specifics about why their IMAX Digital theaters are better than rivals like RPX, ETX, XD, BigD, TitanXC, etc. IMAX would be biting the hands that feed it since just about all those theater chains have at least one or more IMAX-branded theaters. Even if IMAX could get into comparitive specifics about its digital theaters versus its rivals, doing so would ruin the illusion so many customers have about IMAX theaters. Educating customers would reveal the limitations with IMAX' rivals and IMAX Digital. On top of that, IMAX wouldn't come out well in the sound department since it doesn't have a next generation sound format like Barco/Auro 3D 11.1 or Dolby Atmos.

If anything, a theater chain not in a partnership with IMAX could start teeing off on IMAX by openly advertising point by point specifics on why its premium priced giant screen theater is better.

In the near term, it is vital for IMAX to get their dual 4K laser projector system off the ground and into theaters ASAP and have 4K native resolution 3D movies playing on those setups. That will at least put IMAX a big step ahead of theater companies trying to build big screen premium theaters on the cheap. In the long term there's nothing to stop theater companies from actually spending the money to match whatever IMAX does with its digital theaters or even surpassing it.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-25-2013, 08:48 AM:

Bobby, your hypothesis requires that every single cinemagoer cares about this topic as much as you and many of us here do, which we should all know by now is not the case.

IMAX has made its greatest strides within the public consciousness since the implementation of their digital system. Even with the extremely small but very vocal minority of people who can't stop calling it LieMAX, their digital system continues to see unparalleled acceptance from the general public.

The arrogant will call the general public "stupid" for accepting a "clearly inferior" product, but they are not comparing systems the way you might be. To them, they are comparing the IMAX screen to the regular screens at their multiplex based on their personal experiences, not to the 15/70 screens that are your personal experiences.

For myself, if I have to see something in 3D, like Gravity, then I prefer to see it in IMAX if it is a choice. The image is cleaner and brighter, and the eye strain issue just does not exist. If I can see it in 15/70, even better, but that was rarely an option before IMAX digital even when I was living in New York City or Los Angeles.

But how are movie theatre chains taking on IMAX, when so few of these PLF screens exist? Regal, the largest exhibitor in the United States, has about 80 IMAX theatres in their 575 location, but only 60 or so RPX screens. AMC has around 150 IMAX theatres but barely more than a dozen ETX houses. The few chains that have more PLFs than IMAX houses are the ones that never really got in to bed with IMAX in the first place.

When Regal has 40-50% of their locations with at least one RPX screen, then I'll start believing they're taking on IMAX.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-25-2013, 10:42 AM:

@Edward, finally some mature comments regarding IMAX and other premium large formats. You are right pointing out that despite the few that call IMAX "liemax" there has been a almost unparalleled acceptance from the general public regarding their 2K x projector set up. Aside from The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, almost nobody except the few care about 15/70 material that was shot in 15/70, Catching Fire had a almost no buzz about the 15/70 material and the movie did very, very well.

And you are also correct that these people are comparing IMAX to their regular screens and not to the 15/70 that are purpose built venues. Yes it does suck that 15/70 is gone from most places and I cannot watch it my area, but such is life.

Also, one must not forget that IMAX has been adopted and accepted by the studios, IMAX to the regular person is synonymous with "big event" movie. For studios to allow another company to alter the picture, the sound and then distribute it themselves and thus charge a surcharge is pretty significant. I don't think we have seen this is movies before.

I am not sure where Bobby gets his incorrect idea that momentum has swung to the PLF theatres, IMAX is still selling out or close to capacity when a movie is released in it, people are not shying away from IMAX. 7 of the top 10 box office locations in my province are IMAX theatres, IMAX has a drawing power that the others do not have. Right now IMAX has an alternative competitor but those PLF competitors have not gained momentum.

As for Barco/Auro 3D 11.1, are you freaking kidding me, Barco/Auro 3D 11.1 is as about as irrelevant as Dolby 7.1 Surround right now. Dolby Atmos although a good format is not going to have any impact on the current perception or acceptance of IMAX right now. To my ears, the classic 15/70 sound set up is better than Atmos and the current IMAX set up is a good enough.

quote: Edward Havens
For myself, if I have to see something in 3D, like Gravity, then I prefer to see it in IMAX if it is a choice. The image is cleaner and brighter, and the eye strain issue just does not exist.

I prefer to see it in IMAX as well, I like the reserve seating and the classic purpose built IMAX theatre near me is a very nice set up.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-25-2013, 11:25 AM:

I dunno...it is more than a "few" that call it LieMax...and it is really a lie. It has very little in common from what people have known as IMAX. I think the perception would have been different if IMAX had chosen to brand it differently...say IMAX-Digital or something like that...something that distinguished it from the classic 15/70 system yet still built on the IMAX brand/reputation.

As for IMAX having control over a picture sound like no others before...um....Cinerama, ToddAo, D150...These processes received different prints than the mainstream and the movies conformed to their format. I'd say CinemaScope but that was more of a universal format for Fox and if you wanted the title, YOU converted as opposed to the primo houses of the larger formats.

As for the other sound formats, Surround 7.1 is doing VERY well for us and many, many movies are offered in the format. One thing it has going for it is that one need not spend much if any money to adopt it. The benefits do depend on the people mixing the movie, obviously. Movies like Gravity will show off any sound system, Surround 7.1 included. I don't have high hopes for Auro 11.1 because I've yet to hear it add to anything. Just adding height channels just doesn't seem to work (to my ears). It is a lot of money for very little bang. Atmos, if Dolby promoted it better, would probably be a game changer for the bigger markets. It is that much different and better. They have taken sound in a different direction (literally and figuratively). Dolby, like IMAX, has brand recognition and they are going to inherently get more credit for a sound innovation than a projector company that no one outside of our or the A/V industry has heard of. However, I think they are resting a bit too hard on their name for Atmos (or Dolby 3D) and not getting their name/process out there to the general public. Time will tell but one thing is for sure...more and more Atmos titles are coming out and the installed base of theatres keep rising. IMAX hasn't really done anything for sound in 40 years. They were ahead of the curve in the 70s in how they handled a 6-channel sound system...but they are stuck there and really have no need for Center-High anymore. It is great that you like their sound and I'm not saying you shouldn't but it is easily demonstrable how a 5.1, 7.1 and Atmos system can do everything that an IMAX system can do, and also do much more.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-25-2013, 09:41 PM:

quote:
IMAX is still selling out or close to capacity when a movie is released in it,

I've said this before but Terry seems never to get it: This has mostly to do with the fact that the Imax movie is always the biggest new release and is being shown in the biggest auditorium in a complex.

Adding to the fact that the "big" room is always showing the most popular movie....People just like big. Look at TV screen sales -- any TV buyer (especially men) will tell you that you simply can't have too big a screen. The ONE thing movie theaters have that the home system can NEVER duplicate is the advantage of size. There is simply no comparison to hearing a good soundtrack on a good sound system in a great big room with a huge picture. And every decent theater's picture is way bigger than the biggest TV set. So it's no wonder people look to the Imax screen -- they're hoping for the big, bright, loud experience.

It has almost nothing to do with the Imax name. I'm sure the exact same thing is happening in every complex with a "big" room, like Carmike with their BigD screens.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-25-2013, 09:57 PM:

There is a saying"the bigger the lie(max)the more people will believe it" [Cool]

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-25-2013, 10:24 PM:

Good one Victor [Smile]

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 12-25-2013, 11:40 PM:

The other problem with IMAX vs. Premium Large Format private-label screens is the ability to play the best movie in those screens each week. With IMAX, you're stuck with the IMAX deals, with the PLF's it's simply a house placement issue and you can change the title week by week if necessary.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-26-2013, 07:09 AM:

Considering acoustics and other factors in auditorium build are an important part of sound, do we really have to nitpick over one sound format over another as offering such a significantly superior sound experience to the viewer?

Considering most movies are not even suitable for the aspect ratio of traditional IMAX, maybe studios should have rebranded traditional old 70MM at the time for a cheaper solution for large format film. NOw that we are in the digital age, that's a moot point now. I don't see why theaters have to pay licensing to IMAX when they can offer a large format experience almost as good. I saw Gravity in RPX 3D and loved it. Theater chains should be more worried about improving the general chain experience better to get more patrons to their theaters instead of focusing on one just one screen. Make sure every screen is bright and in focus. Sound is crisp and acoustics are well designed in every screen. And then you save the really best stuff for the PLFs, you can make Liemax truly irrelevant unless IMAX decides to up their game and offer a common large format technology that is so good that it won't be practical for each theater chain to reinvent the wheel and they will find it worthwhile to license IMAX .

I see Regal is doing a smart thing with RPX by jazzing up the entrances of their RPX auditoriums that will visually entice the general public to go with RPX at a slightly smaller premium than IMAX. And once they check it out, they will realize the experience is not that different and the sound is better with Dolby Atmos.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-26-2013, 08:55 AM:

Pravin, this is just my opinion but I think the IMAX digital experience is superior to the PLF experience in my area. We have Cineplex AVX and while it is good, I prefer IMAX if I want to watch a big event type movie.

Cineplex offers Atmos but to me Atmos is not good enough to switch over. AVX is simply too dim of a picture for my liking.

quote: Pravin Ratnam
do we really have to nitpick over one sound format over another as offering such a significantly superior sound experience to the viewer?

I don't really think it is that big of a deal, Dolby wants to become relevant again and good for the with Atmos. I really don't care how many channels the format has or how well in pans in the rear surrounds and all, I think most sound is good today. I saw Gravity in Atmos and it was very good, better than IMAX I would say but in the end both were still very good.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Imax movie is always the biggest new release and is being shown in the biggest auditorium in a complex.

Mike, I don't think you get it. Stop being so ignorant.

IMAX Mississauga seats 262 seats, the same theatre has six other auditoriums that seat 300 seats or more, four of the theatres seat seat close to 500 seats and those same four were former THX theatres.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-26-2013, 11:26 AM:

One thing that IMAX does have going for it that the other house brands don't...the ability to say what is good enough. The question is, are they like THX and will allow lesser systems to skate by with the IMAX name so long as they pay IMAX.

While there is no reason that the other systems can't sound substantially better than IMAX and should look as good, and possibly better...there is no oversight on house brands.

So, for IMAX, it comes down to customer confidence in the brand. Which is why LieMax has been an issue, that really shouldn't have been. That is, there is nothing wrong with IMAX using their brand recognition to give credibility to a more Hollywood based format (aspect ratio) and with digital technology rather than 15/70. However, they chose to make no distinction and I think they deserve every hit they take for that. It was a deception to customers to think that the digital version of IMAX is the same as a 15/70 system.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 12-26-2013, 12:13 PM:

I normally don't like to get involved in other people's business, however...

quote: Mike Blakesley
Imax movie is always the biggest new release and is being shown in the biggest auditorium in a complex.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Mike, I don't think you get it. Stop being so ignorant.

IMAX Mississauga seats 262 seats, the same theatre has six other auditoriums that seat 300 seats or more, four of the theatres seat seat close to 500 seats and those same four were former THX theatres.

While there are obviously some exceptions, as you point out, Mike's observations agree with mine. That is, the auditorium chosen for IMAX conversion is almost always the largest in the building, with (close to) the largest screen and (close to) the highest seat count before conversion. Mike has been a well-respected member of this community for well over a decade. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't appreciate your comment towards him. We're all going to disagree from time to time. If you feel someone made an error in stating a fact, it can be pointed out without name-calling.

Just my $.02.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-26-2013, 12:13 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
However, they chose to make no distinction and I think they deserve every hit they take for that. It was a deception to customers to think that the digital version of IMAX is the same as a 15/70 system.

I agree with you Steve, but seriously it has now been five years since IMAX came out with their digital system, people need to get over it. I have no option of watching a DMR movie in my area in 15/70 and it sure does suck, but I have gotten over it and I am not sure how people like yourself can't.

I had the chance to see Elysium in 15/70, what a mistake I made by not going. It probably was the last DMR 15/70 in my territory.

quote: Ken Lackner
While there are obviously some exceptions, as you point out, Mike's observations agree with mine. That is, the auditorium chosen for IMAX conversion is almost always the largest in the building, with (close to) the largest screen and (close to) the highest seat count before conversion. Mike has been a well-respected member of this community for well over a decade. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't appreciate your comment towards him. We're all going to disagree from time to time. If you feel someone made an error in stating a fact, it can be pointed out without name-calling.

Just my $.02.

Well, thank you for your .02 cents. Please explain how the three purpose built IMAX venues in Toronto Scotia, Mississauga Colisuem, and IMAX Vaughn all have seats counts of 408, 262 and 262, all three have at least four auditoriums that approach 500 seats and the Scotia and Vaughn locations were all THX at one time.

Mike's point is really not valid because if IMAX was not popular with customers than they would not be watching or selling out the IMAX venues. Customers are not going to shell out $7 on top of an already expensive ticket price.

quote: Steve Guttag
One thing that IMAX does have going for it that the other house brands don't.

IMAX also has the customer idea that an event movie goes along with IMAX.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-26-2013, 12:49 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
One thing that IMAX does have going for it that the other house brands don't...the ability to say what is good enough.

The problem is IMAX isn't getting into any specifics about what is good enough. In the end the customers just see rival brand names.

quote: Edward Havens
Bobby, your hypothesis requires that every single cinemagoer cares about this topic as much as you and many of us here do, which we should all know by now is not the case.

Actually my hypothesis requires the reverse of that. The less they care the more IMAX is screwed in the long term. If a big screen with loud sound is good enough then the movie chains will build fewer and fewer LieMAX theaters and build a lot more house-brand big screen theaters. And then they'll eventually dump IMAX just like they did THX.

There is little, if anything at all, IMAX can do about this in terms of marketing. Just about all of IMAX' multiplex theater customers have some sort of private label big screen concept. IMAX can't take pot shots at those private label screens without pissing off its multiplex partners who are building those screens. IMAX can't get into comparitive specifics without goofing up the illusions customers have about IMAX itself (and coming up short in the surround sound department).

quote: Edward Havens
But how are movie theatre chains taking on IMAX, when so few of these PLF screens exist? Regal, the largest exhibitor in the United States, has about 80 IMAX theatres in their 575 location, but only 60 or so RPX screens. AMC has around 150 IMAX theatres but barely more than a dozen ETX houses. The few chains that have more PLFs than IMAX houses are the ones that never really got in to bed with IMAX in the first place.

Movie theater chains are now building these private label big screen theaters at a faster pace than what they're doing with IMAX. If anything, they're slowing down with new IMAX screen builds. In Regal's case, the RPX theaters started showing up late in 2010. LieMAX has been around nearly 3 years longer. If they keep adding RPX theaters at this clip the RPX theaters will soon outnumber their IMAX branded houses. Cinemark has built 91 "XD" labeled screens so far. They have 14 IMAX branded theaters in their chain and at least half of those were 15/70 theaters built before LieMAX was introduced. Carmike has 16 IMAX branded theaters it acquired from other chains (Regal, Muvico, etc.) and a deal with IMAX to add 10 more. Carmike's "BigD" concept is fairly new; they already have about 20 of those screens built. One BigD screen replaced an IMAX screen in Myrtle Beach, SC.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
You are right pointing out that despite the few that call IMAX "liemax" there has been a almost unparalleled acceptance from the general public regarding their 2K x projector set up.

General acceptance from the general public? Baloney. If you quiz every customer coming out of a LieMAX theater 99.9% won't have a clue of what's really in the projector booth, much less have a reasonably informed view of what to accept.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I am not sure where Bobby gets his incorrect idea that momentum has swung to the PLF theatres, IMAX is still selling out or close to capacity when a movie is released in it, people are not shying away from IMAX.

Terry, you might want to go back to page 1 of this thread and read the article you posted for starters. That's not the only news article like that online. Take a look at theater chain web sites. Most theater chains of any significant size now have some kind of private label big screen theater concept. These like-LieMAX theaters haven't all been around since IMAX Digital was launched.

quote: Steve Guttag
Dolby, like IMAX, has brand recognition and they are going to inherently get more credit for a sound innovation than a projector company that no one outside of our or the A/V industry has heard of. However, I think they are resting a bit too hard on their name for Atmos (or Dolby 3D) and not getting their name/process out there to the general public. Time will tell but one thing is for sure...more and more Atmos titles are coming out and the installed base of theatres keep rising.

Is Dolby still doing all of the Atmos installations or are they starting to let others do the work? If Dolby is continuing to do it all themselves there's only so many theaters they can equip in a certain amount of time. A possible upside is better quality control on the installation.

I have no idea what Dolby's marketing budget may be, or even what they might be trying to do to improve the marketing visibility of Atmos. Obviously, they need to take care of some basics, like getting all Atmos-equipped theaters to use the Atmos sound format trailers and display posters and other materials around the movie theater complex. I'm finally seeing the Atmos logo on more movie end credits. The Atmos logo has to get on more movie posters. Dolby needs to do some friendly arm twisting to give Atmos more visibility on theater chain web sites. Dolby does have a social media presence and is pushing Atmos there. Dolby is well ahead of Auro in terms of movie releases.

Then again, it may not make nearly as much of a difference for Dolby to market Atmos directly to the average ticket buyers in the public as much as it does for them to sell Atmos to theater operators. Considering the cost of Atmos, Dolby may have to get creative in helping theaters finance Atmos installations if they want Atmos screen counts in the thousands rather than hundreds.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I've said this before but Terry seems never to get it: This has mostly to do with the fact that the Imax movie is always the biggest new release and is being shown in the biggest auditorium in a complex.

Terry gets the point, he's just continuing to deliberately ignore the point.

Customers are used to seeing movies at certain evening time slots, like 7:00-7:30 and 9:30-10:00. The premium big screen theater, IMAX in particular, is always going to have the newest hit movie playing in those time slots. If you want to save a couple bucks and watch the same movie in a different house you'll have to watch the show at an odd time, like 5:00pm or 8:00pm. Terry ignores this point too.

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Theater chains should be more worried about improving the general chain experience better to get more patrons to their theaters instead of focusing on one just one screen. Make sure every screen is bright and in focus. Sound is crisp and acoustics are well designed in every screen.

The chains should be doing this, but too many are not. Even worse, the projection quality in these big screen theaters is often compromised. This is especially true for IMAX as well as any other theater shooting 2K material on a giant sized screen. Many of these theaters deliberately shift the image out of focus to hide the pixel grid.

One thing I loved about film projection is that when it was done right you could see the film grain swimming around on the screen if you sat close enough. I never see that with "digital." The focus is never dialed in perfectly. Some of it I suppose comes from the one size fits all lens designs. The other comes from the need of hiding the pixel grid screen door effect. Type and graphics on screen all look soft and blurry. The same movie has tack sharp detail at home on Blu-ray.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-26-2013, 05:18 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Customers are used to seeing movies at certain evening time slots, like 7:00-7:30 and 9:30-10:00. The premium big screen theater, IMAX in particular, is always going to have the newest hit movie playing in those time slots. If you want to save a couple bucks and watch the same movie in a different house you'll have to watch the show at an odd time, like 5:00pm or 8:00pm. Terry ignores this point too.

Bobby, that is not exactly the case and I am not ignoring that.

Scotia IMAX Toronto is playing Hobbit 2 in the following showtimes:

IMAX 6:20 and 10pm
3D 7:15 and 8:35p
2D 9:20pm

You just want to hate on IMAX, there are plenty of showtimes that are in the sweet spot that is non IMAX or AVX.

At the same theatre, Wolf of Wall Street is playing

AVX 6:40 and 10:40
reg 8:50 and 9:40

I know you have huge issues with IMAX and their new digital presentations, but seriously, it has been five years, can you not move on from it?

quote: Bobby Henderson
trying to do to improve the marketing visibility of Atmos.

Sadly, Secret Life of Walter Mitty cannot be seen in Atmos in my territory. Even worse was the fact that it was originally slated for Atmos in AVX and then at the last minute it was pulled for Wolf Of Wall Street it was advertised all week as in Atmos, they showed the Atmos trailer in front of Wolf Of Wall Street yesterday, not sure if the movie has a Atmos mix but if it doesn't then we have some pretty poor marketing on both Dolby and Cineplex's part.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-26-2013, 06:40 PM:

Terry,

Whereas LieMax is STILL a deception of IMAX's prior self, the complaint is still valid...there is nothing to move on from. It isn't a matter of "hating"...I don't hate it...I just find it deceptive. So I think Bobby's points are valid.

Using your Hobbit 2 showtimes, I would say that the regular 3D got the best time slots with 2D getting the shaft.

On a 3-hour movie...people are not going to be as eager to see the 10:00 and similar shows (the later they are the less likely)...but having two shows in the 7-9pm range would be golden (regular 3D). If you go too early, you encroach on dinner/work times.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-26-2013, 10:21 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Whereas LieMax is STILL a deception of IMAX's prior self, the complaint is still valid.

Steve, I don't dispute that. What kills me is that some people on here are so bothered by it that they can't see some of the benefits of it, it gets really annoying when people just turn it into a bitch session about moving from 15/70 to digital. Then they start to find excuses for the success of it, they give the lame as excuse that is in the perfect time slot, well if it sucks then people will not pay the premium for it. Perhaps there are some movie goers that actually like it.

Edward hit it right on the head, the average movie goer is not comparing IMAX digital to the IMAX 15/70 theatres the way we compare it, these new movie goers simply do not care.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-26-2013, 10:44 PM:

Terry, you may be annoyed by all the "bitching" from me and many others in this forum about IMAX Digital. I'm sure I'm far from being alone in saying I'm sick and tired of you being such a blind, insufferable LieMAX fanboy. If you want to be so dismissive of my points and the points of others as "bitching" then it's fully fair for me to dismiss your comments as cheerleading from a fanboy. It's either that or just plain trolling.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, that is not exactly the case and I am not ignoring that.

Yes you are ignoring it, whether Mike Blakesley, I or someone else says it.

When Mike made the point earlier you used the "I'm rubber, you're glue" ploy redirecting the ignorant thing back at him. When Ken Lacker defended Mike's point of view you spit out some anecdotal stats about three IMAX theaters in your area, as if that microcosm is representative of all IMAX Digital multiplex theater builds. Mike's claim is pretty valid while your stats of IMAX theaters are really not the average.

Most IMAX Digital theaters are indeed set in the highest seating count room in a given multiplex. A movie playing on the IMAX screen will almost always get the best show times while the same movie on another screen in the complex will be given the off peak times. These same rules are true for other premium priced big screen theaters.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I know you have huge issues with IMAX and their new digital presentations, but seriously, it has been five years, can you not move on from it?

I've made my own conclusions about IMAX Digital, but that won't prevent me from talking about it as the issue crops up in other topics, like you pissing on Dolby Atmos every chance you get while extolling the virtues of LieMAX at the same time.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Sadly, Secret Life of Walter Mitty cannot be seen in Atmos in my territory. Even worse was the fact that it was originally slated for Atmos in AVX and then at the last minute it was pulled for Wolf Of Wall Street it was advertised all week as in Atmos, they showed the Atmos trailer in front of Wolf Of Wall Street yesterday, not sure if the movie has a Atmos mix but if it doesn't then we have some pretty poor marketing on both Dolby and Cineplex's part.

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty indeed has a Dolby Atmos mix, with Skip Lievsay (Gravity) doing the re-recording mixing work. Unfortunately, the movie has received less than stellar critics reviews. Fearing poor customer turnout many theater chains chose, at the last minute, not to put the movie on their premium priced big screens. The Wolf of Wall Street was the best alternative.

This situation is NOT at all the fault of Dolby. Blaming Dolby for this situation is absolutely stupid. I was curious about the Atmos mix for this movie, but Harkins Theaters chose not to put it on their Cine Capri screens either. I don't blame them for that since this movie may be a real dud. The only people to blame for that is the people who made the movie.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-27-2013, 05:28 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Considering the cost of Atmos, Dolby may have to get creative in helping theaters finance Atmos installations if they want Atmos screen counts in the thousands rather than hundreds.

What I think they should do is similar to Real-D on a much cheaper scale. Dolby should do a deal where they install the Atmos system and the theater charges a $1 upcharge for Atmos movies with 75% going to Dolby and 25% to the theatre.

Before that split the studios would also get some cut that Dolby would have to work out.

Even if the Studio took 50%, Dolby's cut would be .375 per admission. If the install costs Dolby $30,000 (I pulled this out of my ass but since Dolby is doing the install they would pay cost for their processors) it would take 80,000 admissions to pay for it.

That translates to 400 shows with 200 people. Obviously for something like this to work, only theatres with a minimum level of business would qualify.

Dolby's benefit is two fold. First they get thousands of installations. Second, they have an ongoing revenue stream. They will need a support staff but once the equipment/install financing is paid for they stand to make a good long term profit if they end up with 10,000+ screens.

While interest rates are still so low, now would be the time for a program like this.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-27-2013, 07:46 AM:

Lyle, no way enough moviegoers will go along with a pricing model where they charge a dollar extra for Atmos movies. And I say this as someone who loved Atmos in an RPX theater for Gravity. Such an idea will be DOA.

Terry , I am actually one of those who has gotten over the film to digital transition. But you gotta admit IMAX brought this on themselves by cheapening the IMAX brand. There is still some residual inertia by moviegoers when they recognize even Liemax as such a superior moviegoing experience that they are willing to shell out a premium. Also, considering how bad the average multiplex auditorium is, even Liemax looks very good to critics like me because of the screen brightness and sound. But PLFs are gaining in traction. I barely had a clue what RPX was a couple of years ago and now I am very familiar with it. And I think moviegoers are picking up on it and with proper marketing the chains will only keep getting higher PLF revenue.

Imax brought this on themselves not just because they went digital, but how they went digital by reducing standards of what a large format experience is and not trying to rebrand it as IMAX digital or something like that.

And this nonsense of many Liemax screens looking like a giant piece of drywall hanging loose on the front wall has to stop. If IMAX regroups and comes up with a total projection product that is clearly superior to a PLF, then they can stave off some of the chains from pushing their own PLFs.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-27-2013, 07:57 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
What kills me is that some people on here are so bothered by it that they can't see some of the benefits of it, it gets really annoying when people just turn it into a bitch session about moving from 15/70 to digital. Then they start to find excuses for the success of it, they give the lame as excuse that is in the perfect time slot, well if it sucks then people will not pay the premium for it. Perhaps there are some movie goers that actually like it.

So if we just stop complaining, the problem will fix itself? IMAX hasn't just deceived their customers, they also inflicted damage to their original exibitors, that invested into the IMAX brand name as a distinguishing factor. Even after 5 years, we still do not have an official name for their sub-par Digital IMAX installations and 15/70 is all but extinct now.

For me, IMAX has become something like a "discount" THX, you largely know what you get, someone at least makes sure that the stuff is regularly calibrated, but you need to pay extra for it...

I do not consider Digital IMAX superior to a regular screening, in a halfway decent theater, because it just isn't:

- Many stadium seated theaters offer wall-to-wall screens, if I want an in-your-face picture, I'm just going to sit closer to the screen. Digital IMAX doesn't even offer the biggest picture in many cases, because many of those wall-to-wall screens are in scope format and many movies luckily still are shot in this superior aspect ratio. Also, I don't understand the fuzz about having the biggest screen, the design of the room matters more than the actual size of the screen if you want to get close to the picture.
- Masking has become some kind of luxury in the last 5 or so years, but with IMAX you're sure as hell there is no movable masking whatsoever. (Yeah, there seem to be a few limited venues that do have movable masking, but your average multiplex IMAX doesn't.)
- An increasing number of theaters around here are switching to 4K projectors, while there still is just a limited amount of 4K content available, a 4K projector helps to get rid of that ugly pixel grid, if you're sitting close to the screen. All IMAX venues around here have visible pixel grids even if you're sitting just about halfway. Also, their subtitling system just plainly sucks, something messes with their anti-aliasing in low contrast situations, leading to extremely distinguishable pixels on screen around the subtitles.
- Lack of brightness is usually only an issue in 3D presentations, big theaters around here already use dual projector setups for 3D presentations and RealD XL setups for the medium sized ones, without asking for a premium.
- Those old-school linear polarizers that IMAX uses just suck, tilt your head just slightly and ghosting becomes a major issue.
- The sound quality usually is OK, but also far too loud. A decently implemented and calibrated 7.1 surround system offers a superior sound experience to Digital IMAX.

quote: Lyle Romer
What I think they should do is similar to Real-D on a much cheaper scale. Dolby should do a deal where they install the Atmos system and the theater charges a $1 upcharge for Atmos movies with 75% going to Dolby and 25% to the theatre.

I'd rather wait until Atmos becomes more affordable. Maybe it needs a bit more serious competition to get there, just like DTS and SDDS did in the Dolby Digital days.

And to be honest, Atmos is a real nice upgrade, but I do not really consider it mind blowing and primarily offers advantages in real big auditoria, where surround coverage is usually flaky. In a smaller room, a good 7.1 setup works just fine.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-27-2013, 09:18 AM:

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Lyle, no way enough moviegoers will go along with a pricing model where they charge a dollar extra for Atmos movies. And I say this as someone who loved Atmos in an RPX theater for Gravity. Such an idea will be DOA.

If that is the case, then the format is DOA outside of "Acronym" screens. If moviegoers won't pay $1 per ticket for Atmos, they aren't going to drive an extra 5 or 10 miles to go to a theatre with it (it will cost more in gas than the proposed upcharge).

Therefore, how is there a business case to install it at all? Unless Dolby guaranteed (which they won't) that there would never be a home version of Atmos. Then you could make the case of competing against home theatre with it.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'd rather wait until Atmos becomes more affordable. Maybe it needs a bit more serious competition to get there, just like DTS and SDDS did in the Dolby Digital days.

The cost of the processor can come down but there will always be the cost of the amps and speakers that need to be added. The Dolby Digital days were different. Originally, "Dolby Stereo Digital" was intended to replace 70mm 6-track on "Premium" screens.

They didn't intend for it to be a "mainstream" format. Don't forget, DVD didn't exist yet when it was developed. New build complexes in that era still had mono screens.

The development of the DA20 and related price reduction seemed to be an "oh shit" reaction to DTS which was designed from the get go to be low cost and just thrown on a bunch of screens to advertise digital sound.

Posted by Frank B. McLaughlin (Member # 6683) on 12-27-2013, 09:47 AM:

The 2.0 HDMI spec provides 32 channels of audio at 48 hz. When you move up to 4K rest assured someone will have the hardware you need for that sound in your living room.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-27-2013, 12:23 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
So if we just stop complaining, the problem will fix itself?

The funny thing is the features and limitations of IMAX Digital are absolutely on topic with this thread which Terry himself started. He may not like people "bitching" about IMAX Digital, but he asked for it (just like he has in other discussion threads bringing up this topic).

The larger, possibly worse issue is how movie theater chains may be taking IMAX' own deceptive game one or more steps farther with their one private label big screen theaters. IMAX Digital sure as hell ain't 15-perf 70mm. But you at least have a reasonably good idea of what's going into the theater in terms of projectors and sound. That isn't the case with all these private label big screen theaters.

IMAX isn't going to tell us any of this stuff in the form of competitive advertising. They'll anger their theater chain partners by doing that. The theater chains are kind of pulling an IMAX style trick in letting customers believe all these private label premium screens are all equipped the same way.

It's going to take work of independent parties to clear up this mess if they're in any position to do so. It usually takes a visit to the booth to tell and not every theater is exactly into giving just anyone booth tours, particularly if they feel they need to hide certain shortcomings about just what it is they're selling to the movie-goers.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
For me, IMAX has become something like a "discount" THX, you largely know what you get, someone at least makes sure that the stuff is regularly calibrated, but you need to pay extra for it...

One big difference with THX: it didn't result in a surcharge being tacked onto the ticket price.

I had no problem paying extra to see a movie in real IMAX. That is an expensive process. Today, customers are being expected to pay the same or even higher level of surcharge for a digital replacement that honestly does not show any better of an image than what you see on a normal theater screen. Brighter 3D via dual projectors is about the only benefit.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'd rather wait until Atmos becomes more affordable. Maybe it needs a bit more serious competition to get there, just like DTS and SDDS did in the Dolby Digital days.

Atmos has a credible rival in Auro 3D 11.1. Cinemark, Carmike and some other chains have signed deals with Barco & Auro to install those systems. I think Dolby Atmos is on an entirely different level of superiority, but the fact Auro is developing a theatrical install base (and getting some Hollywood studio title support) should concern Dolby.

quote: Lyle Romer
If that is the case, then the format is DOA outside of "Acronym" screens. If moviegoers won't pay $1 per ticket for Atmos, they aren't going to drive an extra 5 or 10 miles to go to a theatre with it (it will cost more in gas than the proposed upcharge).

There are some, but not many, standard priced theater screens equipped with Atmos. Nevertheless, as expensive as Atmos is it makes the best financial sense to put it in high seating capacity auditoriums. Anymore, those rooms have acronym labels and surcharges.

I think Atmos is far too cumbersome for a home theater environment. 5.1 surround is a big enough hassle for many home viewers to install. We wouldn't be seeing all these "sound bar" products otherwise. 7.1 is a bigger chore. Even if a basic 9.1 Atmos-branded setup was available for home theater I doubt very many people would screw around with that many speakers. Atmos is best for commecial theater environments.

quote: Lyle Romer
The cost of the processor can come down but there will always be the cost of the amps and speakers that need to be added. The Dolby Digital days were different. Originally, "Dolby Stereo Digital" was intended to replace 70mm 6-track on "Premium" screens.

Dolby didn't count on DTS appearing on the scene with Jurassic Park and an entirely different philosophy: any theater should have digital surround sound.

I don't see a problem with Dolby continuing to roll out Atmos into premium priced big screen theaters at a somewhat slow yet steady pace. Any of those theaters need a fleet of amplifiers regardless of what sound format they're using. Dolby will need help from other hardware manufacturers to make it easier and cheaper to install Atmos in smaller, standard priced auditoriums. Cinema power amplifiers typically only have 1 or 2 channels of amplification. Some have 4 channels, but at lower power levels. It's not going to be feasible to have several refrigerator sized racks full of amplifiers powering a sound system for an auditorium of only 300 seats.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-27-2013, 12:29 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
The cost of the processor can come down but there will always be the cost of the amps and speakers that need to be added.

Sure, but it would already solve one part of the "puzzle": Right now, the CP850 itself is already prohibitively expensive for smaller deployments. And, like already mentioned, in a small room, you will not need like 40 channels, probably not even 20. And DTS didn't solve that problem either, if you wanted multi-channel surround sound, you had to invest in your B-chain. Although Dolby currently wants you to replace your existing surround speakers and amps with more powerful ones for Atmos, you could ask yourself if this is really necessary, especially for those smaller rooms? And some kind of investment is to be expected to keep at least a step ahead of the home cinema stuff.

quote: Lyle Romer
The development of the DA20 and related price reduction seemed to be an "oh shit" reaction to DTS which was designed from the get go to be low cost and just thrown on a bunch of screens to advertise digital sound.

Sounds like competition at work. [Wink]

As soon as somebody releases a real, more affordable competitor to Atmos (and, Barco, I'm not looking at you with your stupid 11.1 format) that is embraced by some major movie studios (make it easy to export from Pro Tools), Dolby will be forced to come with an answer. Either by releasing a lightweight version of the CP850 or significantly reducing the price of that model.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-27-2013, 01:01 PM:

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Terry , I am actually one of those who has gotten over the film to digital transition.

And so have I. I just wish some of the members would just stop crying about it every time they comment about IMAX.

quote: Pravin Ratnam
even Liemax looks very good to critics like me because of the screen brightness and sound. But PLFs are gaining in traction.

I agree, the digital IMAX presentation do look better than the average digital projection showing, even better than AVX. PLF's gaining traction would be a better word than momentum.

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Imax brought this on themselves not just because they went digital, but how they went digital by reducing standards of what a large format experience is and not trying to rebrand it as IMAX digital or something like that

I don't disagree with this, but the facts remain as Edward said there has been a near universal adoption by the general audience. That is why I amazed that some just can't move on.

quote:
I do not consider Digital IMAX superior to a regular screening, in a halfway decent theater, because it just isn't:

Fair enough, but that does not mean I have to agree with this. The acoustics, size of the screen, viewing angles and screen brightness at the IMAX at my local multiplex is far superior to the standard theatres in the same building. Even the seats are nicer [Wink]

This IMAX theatre would be purpose built from the ground design.

quote: Lyle Romer
If moviegoers won't pay $1 per ticket for Atmos, they aren't going to drive an extra 5 or 10 miles to go to a theatre with it (it will cost more in gas than the proposed upcharge).

Cineplex charges a surcharge for Atmos, they just roll it into the cost of AVX.

quote: Lyle Romer
Therefore, how is there a business case to install it at all?

From what I have seen, I don't think there is much of a business case for it. I still strongly believe Dolby needs to get into the naming of the theatre, they have a Dolby 3D system and if they were to marry the sound to a good picture presentation I think Atmos would take off. I think Dolby did the right thing by buying the naming rights to the Kodak theatre.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
And to be honest, Atmos is a real nice upgrade, but I do not really consider it mind blowing and primarily offers advantages in real big auditoria, where surround coverage is usually flaky.

I totally agree, this is why I think Atmos will just be as relevant as Dolby 7.1 Surround which is good enough for me.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-27-2013, 01:32 PM:

quote:
Fair enough, but that does not mean I have to agree with this. The acoustics, size of the screen, viewing angles and screen brightness at the IMAX at my local multiplex is far superior to the standard theatres in the same building. Even the seats are nicer [Wink] This IMAX theatre would be purpose built from the ground design.

For me that sounds like this: Your local multiplex offers a generally shitty experience and only offers a halfway good experience if you pay extra.

I can see the general advantage here: Many people are stuck with a local multiplex that offers a generally shitty experience even if they want to pay extra. [Wink]

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-27-2013, 01:44 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Many people are stuck with a local multiplex that offers a generally shitty experience even if they want to pay extra.

Most general multiplex theatres in my area are not the greatest. Based on my personal experience, the smaller the auditorium the better the presentation. As you start going bigger in auditorium and screen size I find the quality starts to get worse. There are some good places to go but most of what Cineplex is offering sucks.

There are three very good IMAX locations in my territory that are within a multiplex, all three are purpose built IMAX venues, however they no longer support 15/70. We also have two IMAX conversion theatres, I mostly stay away from those two.

We used to have some all THX venues in my territory, they are all now long gone.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-27-2013, 01:47 PM:

quote:
Sounds like competition at work. [Wink] As soon as somebody releases a real, more affordable competitor to Atmos (and, Barco, I'm not looking at you with your stupid 11.2 format) that is embraced by some major movie studios (make it easy to export from Pro Tools), Dolby will be forced to come with an answer. Either by releasing a lightweight version of the CP850 or significantly reducing the price of that model.

While I don't like Auro 3D it's still a rival in the theatrical space in that it has a fancy brand name instead of the generic vibe of LPCM and it costs significantly less than Atmos to install.

Dolby has a big advantage on the movie-making level. They have Atmos installed in most of the top movie sound post production houses in the world. They have Atmos related software for ProTools. They have it set up where one can create an elaborate Atmos mix and be able to automatically generate down-mixed 7.1 and 5.1 versions of that mix to save time. How many patents has Dolby filed for Atmos and object oriented sound playback? I'm thinking if any rival company is going to challenge Dolby with a competing object oriented sound format they're going to be playing a hell of a lot of catch-up.

Regarding the price of the CP850, I'm sure that will come down over time. However, I think it's more critical for companies like QSC to develop amplifier systems that are far more Atmos-friendly. If you can fit 32 or 64 channels worth of amplification in just a couple refrigerator sized racks at a price that won't break the bank then Atmos will become more practical for less than giant sized theaters. I'm under the impression Dolby is working with other sound equipment manufacturers to do just that.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-27-2013, 02:41 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Based on my personal experience, the smaller the auditorium the better the presentation. As you start going bigger in auditorium and screen size I find the quality starts to get worse.

That's exactly what you can expect from the current state of the industry: The bigger the auditorium, the bigger the challenges to get it right and most multiplex chains aren't really known for their sophistication. This industry could really use something like a modern version of THX that gets some independently certified quality back into the business.

quote: Bobby Henderson
While I don't like Auro 3D it's still a rival in the theatrical space in that it has a fancy brand name instead of the generic vibe of LPCM and it costs significantly less than Atmos to install.

Releasing a new multi-channel format with static channel mappings as of 2012 was just plain backwards. This pricing advantage will also be primarily in the A-chain, you still need to provide for 12 distinctive channels, no matter what size your auditorium is.

quote: Bobby Henderson
How many patents has Dolby filed for Atmos and object oriented sound playback? I'm thinking if any rival company is going to challenge Dolby with a competing object oriented sound format they're going to be playing a hell of a lot of catch-up.

I've been advocating an open object based audio format for years, even before Dolby had a name for Atmos. Many computer games have done something very similar for years: mapping 3D sounds to distinctive channels yet the only innovation for sound formats was going from 6 distinctive channels to 8, etc. Dolby sure did file some patents for Atmos, most companies that invest in R&D do, but if it sticks is another matter. But Dolby isn't operating in a vacuum, others have been working on similar things for quite some time. Iosono, for example, sounds far superior to anything I've ever heard in Atmos, but that format doesn't seem to make it. Also, Dolby acquired immsound, that offered a system remarkably similar to Atmos, even before Atmos hit the market.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Regarding the price of the CP850, I'm sure that will come down over time. However, I think it's more critical for companies like QSC to develop amplifier systems that are far more Atmos-friendly. If you can fit 32 or 64 channels worth of amplification in just a couple refrigerator sized racks at a price that won't break the bank then Atmos will become more practical for less than giant sized theaters. I'm under the impression Dolby is working with other sound equipment manufacturers to do just that.

Dolby offers a Gigabit Ethernet based interface called Dolby Atmos Connect. The idea is that you can connect multi-channel amps (with built-in DA converters) directly via Ethernet, just like their DAC3201 does right now. You could probably even build a system based on active speakers using Atmos Connect as a bus-system, although the merits of active speakers have been discussed before and not everybody is in favor of those.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-27-2013, 02:54 PM:

Lyle, when I mentioned that charging a dollar for atmos alone is a DOA idea, it doesn't mean the theater cant keep doing what they are doing now where they charge a surcharge for a premium moviegoing experience and Atmos is just a big part of what makes it a premium experience.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-27-2013, 03:06 PM:

QSC already has 8 channel amps in a 2U space. Note too, with Atmos, one can put the amp down closer to the speakers so one is running a bunch of speaker lines long distance...it is cheaper to run a smaller pipe (MC cable) to fire up a couple of outlets down by the speakers (Atmos Link). Via Cobranet, people have been doing this for stage speakers for some time (QSC Basis comes to mind).

As for room size versus channels...small rooms are going to need a lot of channels too...think of speakers as resolution to the system...the more you have, the more precise one can locate the object in 3D space. Now your size of speaker and amplifier size should scale down but I would tend to recommend more smaller speakers than fewer larger ones.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-27-2013, 03:40 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Actually my hypothesis requires the reverse of that. The less they care the more IMAX is screwed in the long term. If a big screen with loud sound is good enough then the movie chains will build fewer and fewer LieMAX theaters and build a lot more house-brand big screen theaters. And then they'll eventually dump IMAX just like they did THX.

That's a logical fallacy, Bobby. IMAX digital would not have gotten the mass acceptance from cinemagoers it inarguably has in the past five years if they cared as much about 15/70 as you and the other "LieMAX" haters.

And your retort ignores two major differences between IMAX and PFLs:
1) An IMAX Experience will be relatively the same from location to location, regardless of which chain one goes to.
2) IMAX is a universal brand, and has cross-chain marketing that RPX, XD, AVX and all those other alphabet soup formats can never have.

Recently, a Cinemark theatre in my area converted one of their houses to XD. I popped my head inside the converted theatre during a recent visit at this location, and I for one could not tell the difference from the theatre I had seen Skyfall in less than a year earlier. The screen dimensions looked exactly the same. The seats (which were admittedly very nice leather chairs) looked exactly the same. The overall setup of the houses seemed exactly the same. Now, I didn't watch a movie in that converted house, but the point is that the theatre showed no signs of external improvement over its pre-conversion counterpart. It looked like every other non-XD house in the building. When one walks in to an IMAX digital house, one instantly knows this is not the same as the other theatres in the building.

When Rave did an IMAX conversion at my previous theatre two and a half years ago, guests who had seen movies in that theatre saw the changes without them being pointed out. They saw the ceiling had been raised to fit the screen. They saw that several rows had been removed from the front of the auditorium, that the screen had been moved forward several feet, and that the closest seat to the screen was still farther away from the screen than it had been before the conversion. They saw it wasn't as massive as the IMAX screen at the Metreon (the closest 15/70 house, and tied with the Lincoln Square for the largest IMAX screen in America) and they were still impressed. Only a very minuscule percentage of people complained about it being a "LieMAX" screen.

And that's cool.

To be completely honest, I was quite disappointed the first time I saw an IMAX digital presentation. It was Watchmen, and when I walked in to that theatre, I seriously thought to myself "What the f**k???? This isn't an IMAX theatre!!!!" But I stayed, in part because I used passes to get in and I wanted to see the movie. But I didn't become a convert to IMAX digital until I was working at a theatre that had it (see anecdote previous paragraph) and saw the daily positive reactions of the guests experiencing it.

Most people in America did not have regular access to 15/70 IMAX even at the height of its pre-digital conversion acceptance. Most people in America are not willing to drive a hundred miles or more to see a movie because it's being presented in 15/70 IMAX. It was too cost-prohibitive for there to be anything more than a handful of 15/70 houses built, and that cost factor was keeping IMAX from growing. In fact, it was sending them to bankruptcy, but we all already know that.

But to their credit, they didn't just say "Okay, two 2k projectors sitting next to each other. Done!" They heard the complaints from people like Bobby Henderson of Lawton, OK, who pointed out the resolution didn't remotely match the resolution of 15/70, and that the current digital projection technology couldn't provide a good picture if they tried to project it on a large 15/70 screen like the ones at Metreon and Lincoln Square. They kept pushing the boundaries of the technology, to come up with something that would be of a higher resolution and would look great on those largest 15/70 screens, and sometime in the next year, we'll see if they were successful.

If any chain wants to truly take on IMAX, they'll need to go beyond what IMAX can offer, and the introduction of AMC Prime is, for me, a step in the right direction. Not just a large screen experience but also Dolby Atmos AND THX Certification (yes, you read that right) AND those large comfy leather chairs. But converting a couple hundred houses to AMC Prime is going to take a massive level of capital to implement and it's going to take a massive effort of marketing.

You'll never see a snipe saying "See it in AMC Prime" at Regal or Cinemark, but you will see "See it in IMAX" at all three chains. And that's the distinct advantage IMAX has over all the PLFs, and very few chains are going to give up the advantage IMAX provides them until these PLFs are installed a majority of chain locations and have the mass acceptance with their guests that IMAX currently enjoys. The stakes are just too high to let go of something that is working now.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-27-2013, 04:02 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
Not just a large screen experience but also Dolby Atmos AND THX Certification (yes, you read that right)

And how exactly does that work? They have two separate sound systems, competing for the same space behind the screen and alongside the walls? And they unscrew their THX signage every time they're running an Atmos show?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-27-2013, 05:28 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Releasing a new multi-channel format with static channel mappings as of 2012 was just plain backwards.

The bigger problem I have with Auro is the audio channels are, arguably, reduced quality. The base 7.1 LPCM channels are dropped in bit depth. The remaining channels are compressed/encoded in Auro's proprietary format. This sounds like a step backwards into lossy territory. The channel mappings aren't standard in any respect to the DCI audio channel layout. Atmos sidesteps the entire issue, providing something that is a clear leap above 10.2, 11.1, etc. and maintaining lossless audio quality.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Iosono, for example, sounds far superior to anything I've ever heard in Atmos, but that format doesn't seem to make it. Also, Dolby acquired immsound, that offered a system remarkably similar to Atmos, even before Atmos hit the market.

Doesn't Iosono's holographic sound setup require something like 300 or 400 speakers? It seemed like a very experimental setup as a proof of concept for what could be done with audio. In the end sound formats mostly live or die by the number of movies that are mixed in the process and equipped theaters able to play the mix. Iosono apparently couldn't get Hollywood studios and theaters to adopt their concept.

The situation with immSound and Dolby reminds me a little of what went on between DTS and the French LC Digital format. IIRC, DTS wound up buying LC Digital's patents after a court battle. Dolby bought immSound just as it was starting to get some movie support in Europe.

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Lyle, when I mentioned that charging a dollar for atmos alone is a DOA idea, it doesn't mean the theater cant keep doing what they are doing now where they charge a surcharge for a premium moviegoing experience and Atmos is just a big part of what makes it a premium experience.

The last time I visited Harkins' Cine Capri theater in Bricktown (by downtown Oklahoma City) I noticed they were actually charging $10 for shows in that house versus the $9 standard price for other non-3D shows. I doubt if they're sharing any of that dollar surcharge with Dolby.

quote: Steve Guttag
QSC already has 8 channel amps in a 2U space.

I had only looked at the THX-approved cinema amps from QSC. If an 8-channel amp was in there I must have missed it. I only saw 1, 2 and 4 channel amps on that page. Regarding placing the amp closer to the speakers, I never knew anyone did that. Where do they stick the amplifiers? Up in the ceiling? I suppose such a thing could be necessary in some of these new "boothless" theaters.

quote: Edward Havens
That's a logical fallacy, Bobby. IMAX digital would not have gotten the mass acceptance from cinemagoers it inarguably has in the past five years if they cared as much about 15/70 as you and the other "LieMAX" haters.

The fallacy is this notion that customers have accepted IMAX en masse. IMAX' pumped up theatrical gross numbers aren't all from people going out of their way to see a movie in The IMAX Experience. We've talked about other factors that absolutely come into play to sweeten those earnings numbers.

I'll also bet nearly all the people who are going out of their way to watch something in "IMAX" don't honestly know just what it is they're buying. They're there for the brand name and the illusion of superior quality.

quote: Edward Havens
And your retort ignores two major differences between IMAX and PFLs:
1) An IMAX Experience will be relatively the same from location to location, regardless of which chain one goes to.
2) IMAX is a universal brand, and has cross-chain marketing that RPX, XD, AVX and all those other alphabet soup formats can never have.

Edward, you clearly missed the part in my "retort" where I've been repeating your point #1 which I supposedly ignored. It's a situation of bad (LieMAX) and potentially even worse (the wannabe LieMAX house brand big screens).
[Roll Eyes]

Cinemark has 91 of these "XD" theaters and I don't really know what the hell is in those theaters or if they're even consistently the same from one location to the next. Does Cinemark's XD theaters support dual projector 3D or is it just one projector showing dim 3D? I know the XD theaters vary in sound format. The XD screen in Plano, TX has Dolby Atmos. A few have Auro 3D 11.1. Most have 7.1 surround. But who can really tell according to their web site?

As far as brands go, IMAX has been taking a giant dump on theirs. The IMAX brand stopped meaning anything to me when they started pulling 15/70 projection systems out of their theaters. IMAX may have cross-chain marketing. But companies like Dolby have that too. One thing that IMAX isn't going to have: movies with the term "filmed in IMAX." Once Christopher Nolan is no longer able to push 15/65 cameras around on movie sets that will be the end of it.

With digital technology it's often a cruel numbers game where the lowest common denominator often wins. From the day IMAX started its push into digital territory I knew the company would be vulnerable to other theaters trying to do the same thing but cheaper. Now plenty of theater chains are doing just that.

Maybe IMAX can survive, co-exist or even succeed against this growing wave of private label big screen theaters. But it's going to take a lot more than IMAX trying to coast on its brand name in order to do so. A dual 4K laser projection system would be a good start. The current 2K thing really sucks. If it's in focus it's pixel jaggy. Most of the time it's deliberately de-focused and that looks just as bad. This same issue goes for any theater doing 2K on a huge screen. IMAX has to do something about that damned "laser aligned" sound system.

quote: Edward Havens
You'll never see a snipe saying "See it in AMC Prime" at Regal or Cinemark, but you will see "See it in IMAX" at all three chains.

The biggest problem is the see it in IMAX term doesn't mean anything. Occasionally some movie commercials will throw up the logos for the other fake large format theaters. World War Z did it. The Walter Mitty movie is promoting Cinemark's XD theaters in its commercials. None of that means anything either. It's only a matter of time before enough of the general public wakes up to that fact that it becomes a problem.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-27-2013, 05:45 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
One thing that IMAX isn't going to have: movies with the term "filmed in IMAX."

IMAX has a new digital camera, so I am sure they will continue with "Filmed in IMAX"

quote: Edward Havens
They saw the ceiling had been raised to fit the screen. They saw that several rows had been removed from the front of the auditorium, that the screen had been moved forward several feet, and that the closest seat to the screen was still farther away from the screen than it had been before the conversion. They saw it wasn't as massive as the IMAX screen at the Metreon (the closest 15/70 house, and tied with the Lincoln Square for the largest IMAX screen in America) and they were still impressed.

And this set up/conversion is technically patented by IMAX. I know Cinemark or another company did a set up that was very close to the IMAX conversion and IMAX took the company to court but it was settled out of court. So I am not sure what was the settlement.

I personally don't really like the conversion, but I am spoiled with a perfect purpose built IMAX set up close by that has reserved seating that are comfy leatherette type. Only crap thing is that it is now digital.

quote: Edward Havens
And that's the distinct advantage IMAX has over all the PLFs, and very few chains are going to give up the advantage IMAX provides them until these PLFs are installed a majority of chain locations and have the mass acceptance with their guests that IMAX currently enjoys.

I would also add that IMAX also has the "event movie" status that the others don't really have. The chains will open up anything in premium large format theatres whereas there is an exclusivity to what IMAX will show.

quote: Edward Havens
But I didn't become a convert to IMAX digital until I was working at a theatre that had it (see anecdote previous paragraph) and saw the daily positive reactions of the guests experiencing it.

It really is nice to read some comments from someone who has actually worked in an IMAX conversion venue. Thank you Edward.

quote: Edward Havens
Bobby. IMAX digital would not have gotten the mass acceptance from cinemagoers it inarguably has in the past five years if they cared as much about 15/70 as you and the other "LieMAX" haters.

And that sums it up.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-27-2013, 06:43 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The bigger problem I have with Auro is the audio channels are, arguably, reduced quality. The base 7.1 LPCM channels are dropped in bit depth. The remaining channels are compressed/encoded in Auro's proprietary format.

Somebody could also just update SMPTE 428-3-2006 and add a clear definition for the still unused channels... Although it will probably hard for the industry to settle on a new standard, given the bureaucracy and different interests involved. And, obviously, that would require yet another DCP to be made for every release supporting this new format, but at least it would conform to a mostly open standard. Barco is just taking advantage of the notoriously slow moving decision making on that level, with their sub-par surround system.

I really hope Barco's initiative will eventually fail and a more sophisticated system, much more like Atmos will come along and get some traction, hopefully even using an open audio format.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Doesn't Iosono's holographic sound setup require something like 300 or 400 speakers?

Their current deployment supports up to 128 channels, so apparently, it doesn't require that amount of speakers to work. It does, however, require a very high speaker density. Although, the density I've seen in their setup, doesn't seem to dramatically exceed that of a recent Atmos install around here.

As far as I know, Dolby Atmos essentially uses an advanced form of panning to place sounds at the desired location, probably to keep the system compliant with lower density configurations. While the increased amount of speakers and the inclusion of height increases both the resolution and range of what can be achieved, it is still not really possible to create sounds that seem to emanate from within the room.

quote: Bobby Henderson
In the end sound formats mostly live or die by the number of movies that are mixed in the process and equipped theaters able to play the mix. Iosono apparently couldn't get Hollywood studios and theaters to adopt their concept.

Proprietary formats are a way for the industry to secure their monopoly on a certain technology. That's why Dolby, Iosono and Barco all have developed their own closed sound formats, but the industry as a whole would benefit from more open standards, just like the current LPCM implementation. I don't see any technical reasons why at least Atmos and Iosono could not use the same, open object based audio format. There is just a difference in how the actual sound is being "rendered", but in an object based format, that's the whole point: the decoder should apply the best possible strategy to "render" the sound on the given hardware.

But for all we know, the hardware in the current CP850 is sufficiently sophisticated to be capable of handling a sophisticated Wave Front Synthesis algorithm and it's just a matter of updating the firmware to enable those features for systems that have sufficient speaker density.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I personally don't really like the conversion, but I am spoiled with a perfect purpose built IMAX set up close by that has reserved seating that are comfy leatherette type. Only crap thing is that it is now digital.

Reserved seating and the type of seating being used have never been part of the IMAX package but are almost entirely left to the exhibitor.

And, on another note, their "patented design" failed to account for sufficient field of view in one of their conversions they did around here. If somebody tall sits in front of you, you better hope the movie is in scope rather than flat. The scope screen that was there before the conversion didn't have that basic deficiency. Also, that same theater has a few seats located BEHIND the IMAX surround speakers. Those seats are beneath the booth, and those seats are popular, because for some reason I cannot explain, many people love to sit as far away from the screen as possible...

But if IMAX would REALLY give a damn about presentation quality, they would not have allowed this kind of SNAFUs to happen. They would have told the exhibitor that those seats in the back need to be removed and they would've raised and sized the screen sufficiently to avoid those amateurish line-of-sight issues.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-27-2013, 07:22 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
But if IMAX would REALLY give a damn about presentation quality, they would not have allowed this kind of SNAFUs to happen. They would have told the exhibitor that those seats in the back need to be removed and they would've raised and sized the screen sufficiently to avoid those amateurish line-of-sight issues.

Technically in a true 15/70 IMAX venue, the entire screen is not completely unobstructed to ALL seats. The pit area part of the screen gets blocked to some viewers, this has happened since IMAX was formed in the 1970's. But you are right, it sucks to have your view blocked.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Reserved seating and the type of seating being used have never been part of the IMAX package but are almost entirely left to the exhibitor.

Makes no difference to me who is responsible for it, I would gladly pay a premium for reserved seating.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-27-2013, 11:34 PM:

While a limited amount of obstruction in their 15/70 houses might be totally acceptable, given the way this real 4:3 IMAX material was filmed, it clearly isn't for Hollywood movie presentations in either flat or scope.

During the presentation I witnessed of the last Die Hard installment a few months back, even the subtitles were massively obstructed from my position and this movie contained some Russian dialog, where subtitles were actually needed for people that generally understand English.

Reserved seating has been a defacto standard in most multiplex chains around here for quite some years. Although some of those chains still charge you a small fee for the privilege, it's actually stupid to do so, it only helps to bring your handling costs down, since most tickets will now be sold either on-line or via ticket machines, largely eliminating the need for box office personnel...

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-28-2013, 12:59 AM:

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Lyle, when I mentioned that charging a dollar for atmos alone is a DOA idea, it doesn't mean the theater cant keep doing what they are doing now where they charge a surcharge for a premium moviegoing experience and Atmos is just a big part of what makes it a premium experience.

My logic is that if people won't pay a premium just for Atmos but will pay a premium for AAE (An Acronym Experience) without Atmos then what is the business case for Atmos?

Having heard it, I think it is a huge leap in sound presentation and I'd pay $1 extra to have Atmos sound. I don't like paying extra for a big screen and tend to avoid it (except when I had to go to an AMC ETX house to hear Atmos).

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-28-2013, 01:30 AM:

@Lyle. The business case for charging extra for Atmos would require a good or consistent image to go along with it. You would also have to throw in nicer seats and reserved seatimg. Sound alone is not enough to charge a premium. People will pay a premium for comfier chairs, bigger screens, no masking (which is stupid) and reserved seating, Dolby 7.1 is already good enough. Most sound is good enough as it is.

Cineplex rolls Atmos into AVX pricing.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-28-2013, 08:04 AM:

{quote]The fallacy is this notion that customers have accepted IMAX en masse. IMAX pumped up theatrical gross numbers aren't all from people going out of their way to see a movie in The IMAX Experience. We've talked about other factors that absolutely come into play to sweeten those earnings numbers.[/quote]
Bobby, do you work at a theatre that has an IMAX screen, either digital or 15/70? I suspect the answer is "no," because I do, and I see what the audience split is between IMAX and non-IMAX, every day. I'm not talking about dollars. I'm talking about the number of tickets sold, butts in the seats. I'm talking about the number of calls I receive on a daily basis. If you honestly think the public hasn't accepted IMAX digital en masse, it's because you aren't there dealing with it day in and day out.

Now here is the rock that is keeping you down...

quote:
The IMAX brand stopped meaning anything to me when they started pulling 15/70 projection systems out of their theaters.

You're arguing this from a singular personal point of view. I'm arguing this from multiple personal points of direct knowledge. Your presumptions are based on how you'd like the world to be. My facts are based on how the world is. You spin anecdotal information gleaned from like-minded individuals. I give direct experiences.

quote: Bobby Henderson
IMAX may have cross-chain marketing. But companies like Dolby have that too.

I love Dolby. Being able to go to the Dolby HQ in San Francisco in 2011 and getting to meet Ioan Allen and listen to him talk about sound and movies will remain one of the greatest days of my life, no matter what I have and may still accomplish. But Dolby isn't the industry leader it once was. Atmos doesn't mean as much to today's moviegoers as Dolby Stereo did in the late 1970s. Better and stronger marketing would help.

quote: Bobby Henderson
One thing that IMAX isn't going to have: movies with the term "filmed in IMAX." Once Christopher Nolan is no longer able to push 15/65 cameras around on movie sets that will be the end of it.

You couldn't Google "IMAX digital camera" before typing that, to see how incredibly wrong you are about that?

quote: Marcel Birgelen
And how exactly does that work? They have two separate sound systems, competing for the same space behind the screen and alongside the walls? And they unscrew their THX signage every time they're running an Atmos show?

Dolby Atmos is a surround sound technology that uses exactly one brand of sound processor (Dolby CP850) to perform its intended task. THX is not a sound system but a quality assurance system that can be certified using a choice of third-party equipment to achieve its intended goal.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-28-2013, 11:58 AM:

quote: Edward Havens
Dolby Atmos is a surround sound technology that uses exactly one brand of sound processor (Dolby CP850) to perform its intended task. THX is not a sound system but a quality assurance system that can be certified using a choice of third-party equipment to achieve its intended goal.

Thanks for the THX introduction... And sorry to rain on your parade, but THX has been marketed as "sound system" for a few decades and while it is just a bunch of specifications, a certified equipment list and accompanying certification, it is still a system primarily focusing on sound. And last time I checked Dolby Atmos didn't qualify yet for THX certification.

So, yet again, how can you have Atmos and THX in the same room? I guess you can't and their marketing is just bullshit.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-28-2013, 12:36 PM:

I've never seen or heard THX being marketed as a sound system, because sound is only a portion of what it takes for a theatre to get THX certification. In fact, if you do a Google search for thx sound system, you get a lot of photos of home theatre equipment, but you don't actually see anything that's called a THX Sound System. You will see some things listed as being a THX-certified sound system, but that means the sound system in question is THX certified, not that the sound system itself is manufactured by THX.

But then, that you think THX is a sound system could just be you misunderstanding what it all is and not doing the research for yourself to understand what it is. I don't know.

As for the CP850, I suspect it is THX certified, since there are now three AMC Prime houses that have THX certification using that unit as the sound processor.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-28-2013, 12:44 PM:

Well, I guess I have a sound understanding of what THX is supposed to be, or rather, what it once stood for...

But maybe a little reminder for you.

And I suppose the theater was THX certified before Atmos went in and since AMC probably has the "privilege" of self re-certification, they just put the THX label on it, whether it conforms to specifications or not...

Still, the end result is just marketing bullshit and brand abuse, if it still matters for THX anyway...

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-28-2013, 12:59 PM:

This having Atmos and THX in the same room is really a non-issue and shows how tedious this thread has become recently. All the back and forth points are made by very smart people but are essentially much ado about nothing. No one is completely wrong or right, except for the relentless Terry who even when he is factually correct on some small point, misses the larger point that none of this has any real importance. Unless annoying Bobby and Mike B., or me is the real end game.

Yes, THX is a criteria not a sound system but that did not deter them from claiming that it is as their fortunes wane. "See it in THX" is one of these stupidities. For that matter Dolby is using "sound is half the picture" tag lines. Also stupid and lacking imagination.

Dolby as a point of pride does not "submit" anything to THX. I'm betting THX will eventually just put Atmos on their list as they need the screen count.

The real value of THX was to help build an acoustically ideal place to watch a movie. So if you're in a "THX auditorium" anything you play in it should sound better than otherwise. At least that was the reason THX was formed.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-28-2013, 01:05 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
That's a logical fallacy, Bobby. IMAX digital would not have gotten the mass acceptance from cinemagoers it inarguably has in the past five years if they cared as much about 15/70 as you and the other "LieMAX" haters.

And your retort ignores two major differences between IMAX and PFLs:
1) An IMAX Experience will be relatively the same from location to location, regardless of which chain one goes to.
2) IMAX is a universal brand, and has cross-chain marketing that RPX, XD, AVX and all those other alphabet soup formats can never have.

First, with respect to IMAX and LieMax. IMAX has a 40 year history of being a presentation format as well as a company name. The reputation was built upon a big screen experience with technology that was generally ahead of the curve (15/70 picture, 6-channel sound with subwoofers back when most movies were mono, a controlled theatre design and environment, light-levels that were generally above other theatres...etc.) To divorce only part of that concept is nothing more than a lie...hence the LieMax adoption. It is like the difference between "Filmed in Panavision" that means a "Scope" movie with anamorphic lenses and "Filmed with Panavision lenses and cameras"...which just denotes a quality level that probably never meant to anything to anyone outside of our industry. People are basically not technoweenies and if you are boasting about something...it probably means bigger/louder or a combination of it.

IMAX trading on its name is just fine by me but applying the same name to a different process is an attempt to deceive the public into thinking that they are getting the same technology (or even an equivalent update of the same technology). If there was no intent to deceive, they would have called it something different and kept their name attached to it. IMAX DIGITAL would have had likely the same consumer recognition and Digital has not been a buzzword that has hurt anyone, quite the opposite.

Mind you, I've never cared the for the IMAX experience (film). I don't like the 1.4 ratio as the height never did anything to augment my experience...but that is just me. I'm a 5/70 guy.

Which leads me into the question of is it important that consumer understand a technology for it to be valid. The 100 year history of cinema proves that the consumer rarely if ever understands (or cares) about the technology. They will make up in their minds what something means and be satisfied with that explanation. Do you think most people knew that film just showed a sequence of still images that they stopped in a gate, were shown 2 or 3 times as stills and then their brains, due to persistence of vision formed a continuous moving image? Well do ya punk? No! How about Color. Yeah, they get basics like B&W/Color...but how about Technicolor? What is the difference between "filmed in Technicolor" vs "Prints by Technicolor?" Not a clue and they don't care.

As I said, I'm a 5/70 fan (Todd Ao, actually). In my career, 70mm has ALWAYS drawn a better crowd than its competitors in other formats. To some degree, IMAX did the same as traditional 70mm fell out of favor. Did/do the patrons that flocked to see the latest movie presented in 70mm 6-track Stereo (with or without Dolby) know really what it meant? Not a chance and believe me I know it for a fact. They thought it meant it was bigger/better/louder. Think about it, 70mm normally showed up on the biggest screens in any town though there were exceptions to the rule. When I ran ET back on its original release (a 1.85 ratio movie)...the arguments one could get into for it to not fill the "70mm screen) were a plenty. I had a manager come into the booth with a ruler to measure the film to make sure it was 70mm wide (no kidding). Back then you always got a 35mm backup of the 70mm prints..so I pulled a reel of the back up and showed him the difference in frame size and that the ratios matched and then the soundtracks (I might have even rolled the same reel on each machine one 35 and one 70mm so he could see/hear the actual difference that a customer should notice if they actually understood what 70mm meant.

Then in the '90s having to suffer the lack of 70mm because that was "just for the sound" and with digital audio, we didn't need 70mm (mind you, i always worked the larger screen theatres, like the Uptown in DC) and we NEEDED 70mm to get the image to look decent. But with digital sound we had NEW technoweenies that thought they knew what was the best digital audio based on "compression" and such. At the Uptown I could switch digital sound formats at will and for some that would "request" one or the other, I rolled my eyes and said, I'll switch, possibly, on reel changes...after the show...you tell me which reels sounded best. It happened several times, by the way. 1/2 the time they couldn't tell the difference, the other half they always picked the Dolby Digital sound as being best...despite requesting DTS (we didn't have SDDS there).

In the '70s and into the 80s...we had Dolby Stereo...what did that mean to john q public? Why surround sound (and louder) of course. They had no idea that "stereo" meant three screen speakers to us...they don't have that at home (not then, for sure) so there was no idea what extra expense it was to put in mere Dolby Stereo.

How many of you have received comments when you were gearing up for DCinema "I thought you already were running off of DVD" or something like that. As film has left the consumer hands (and isn't in the classroom anymore by a couple of decades)...they have no concept of it.

My very long winded point is that the consumer's lack of understanding is no excuse to not provided the very best experience that technology and prudent business practices will allow. What the public is buying for that ticket is that experience. Their perception of an improved experience with the "X" theatres is sufficient if it is sufficient to the consumer. If you want the consumer to differentiate one format or system from another, you WILL have to educate them on it and it will be a long slow trog. Over time, certain theatres do develop a reputation for being very good (or bad) and claim more than their typical share of a market so putting on a better show than your competitors (which might be someone's living room or even a different form of entertainment entirely) is something a business must always keep in mind.

THX was supposed to be a seal of approval. That said, VERY few people knew what those three letters meant...including THX! In the beginning, it was a set of sound design and implementation principles that allowed commercial theatres to have equivalent sound reproduction to the dubbing rooms that mixed the movie. Note, they also evaluated the picture but it was the sound that was their focus. However, in the quest for $$$ they sold out and approved sub-standard theatres. As such, the deflated their brand. One that most consumers didn't understand anyway and they also had a business model that required an exhibitor to continually pay for those three letters despite THX not really doing much for it. It became sillier when in-house people could re-certify a theatre since one has financial incentive to "pass" them. At that point, why bother? And sure enough, people stopped paying for it, by and large.

This is a danger for IMAX too. They can't afford any bad theatres because it reflects across the whole brand. I liken IMAX to THX in that they are selling their brand as a quality level that, while achievable by anyone, often isn't achieved by others because there is no one that is saying "you can't cut that corner or save there, you have to spend the money to do it right." I applaud them for doing the daily calibrations to make sure everything is tip-top. I still classify it is a LieMax because they didn't distinguish their classic experience from this Hollywood based one. It IS a different experience and it isn't important that EVERY consumer knows what 15/70 is, it is sufficient that anyone knows that there is a difference between 15/70 and 2K or 4K digital projection. You don't call different things the same thing; that is deception...or a Lie.

History has show, in our industry, "premium" theatres/formats, particularly single-sourced, have their day in the sun but they often fade away over time as lower cost alternatives that are "good enough" push them aside. The public, by and large, has a preferred theatre more than a process and their preference my be merely convenience or it may be due to the perception of a better value/experience.

Long term, IMAX is going to have a hard time keeping its market share if history tells us anything. However, IMAX has shown in the past couple of decades that it can try to re-invent itself to remain relevant. Perhaps it can keep ahead. I just wish it wouldn't use deception to do so because it doesn't need to.

As for THX and ATMOS (and IMAX)...they are not mutually exclusive entities (Though IMAX traditionally handles its sound differently there is nothing to stop them from branding themselves with ATMOS). Just because one may think of THX as a sound system does not mean it is/was (it wasn't). That was one of THX's issues...they never educated their customer as to what THX meant. It was, at its core, a set of requirements to ensure accurate sound reproduction. This applies to traditional sound systems (including Mono) as well as the new immersion ones (sorry to those sick of the immersion name). I think their problem will be convincing exhibitor to spend money with THX (continually) to some how best their competitors because they have a THX certified auditorium with Atmos versus a mere Atmos auditorium (as an example). You are talking about a fraction of a fraction. When combined with IMAX it would seem even less likely since IMAX already enjoys what THX has traditionally enjoyed...that is to force a quality level. As a contractor/dealer, one nice thing about THX was that they could be the "bad guy" requiring one to buy a particular type/quantity of equipment and to make the baffle wall...etc. IMAX already has that...I'm not sure that THX brings to the table in a combo room. As for THX-Atmos...well, Dolby can suggest a baffle wall and a certain quantity of speakers...an exhibitor is free to ignore those suggestions...with THX, they could require it in order to attain THX certification...but what is the current value of THX to the movie goer at this point? That was squandered years ago.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-28-2013, 01:23 PM:

quote: Sam D. Chavez
For that matter Dolby is using "sound is half the picture" tag lines

What are you talking about? Sam, Dolby has used "Hear the whole picture" or "I heard it in Atmos" or "At the heart of great cinema is great sound"

quote: Steve Guttag
To divorce only part of that concept is nothing more than a lie...hence the LieMax adoption.

Which is all fine and dandy, but Edward makes a very valid point, customers have adopted IMAX digital and their theatre conversions and they have shown they are willing to pay premium for IMAX in either digital or if they can find it 15/70. I just can't understand why you can't move on from it, IMAX is not going to collapse because of the lack 15/70, the biggest risk factor for IMAX is the possible lack of studio support. IMAX is digital or film succeeds because of the films that are presented in the format.

Steve, the average moviegoer does not care about IMAX the way we view it.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-28-2013, 01:47 PM:

We will never move on from the truth regarding IMAX vs Liemax!
It's a point of deceit that should never be lost Terry.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-28-2013, 01:50 PM:

quote: Sam D. Chavez
This having Atmos and THX in the same room is really a non-issue and shows how tedious this thread has become recently. All the back and forth points are made by very smart people but are essentially much ado about nothing.

For me, this is more like proving the point that in this industry, there is almost nothing left that signifies any real value...

Getting Atmos on the THX program is probably just a formality, but still, if it currently isn't, then it isn't and if we do not care if somebody (a rather large theater chain in this case) sticks THX labels on something that most likely isn't, then what's left to care about? Those new "brands" of "Premium Large Format" theaters that are spawning around the globe offer even less value than THX does now, because it never originated from anything that had any real value, it's just hollow marketing bullshit with big-time logos that signify absolutely nothing.

And the same goes for IMAX, at least for me: Digital IMAX just adds to the frustration, because it's yet another thing of value that has been largely lost. And like many others already stated, it would all be perfectly fine if they used another label than just "IMAX" for their sub-par digital product even if they put something like "powered by IMAX" on it, in huge blue letters.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-28-2013, 01:51 PM:

Terry, your single mindedness has once again missed the point...yes the consumer doesn't normally know/care...nobody is arguing that and my long-winded explanation above showed that this is not news for any prior systems...the fact remains that IMAX has intentionally deceived the customer into thinking that different processes are the same...that is the point, the whole point. Don't call something the same when it isn't. It isn't even "equivalent" on many levels. Hence, it earns the LieMax brandishing by any that choose to state it.

Note, we were merciless about Dolby's Fake "SR" too with the CAT222SR/A...something the customer was lied to by Dolby (customer being both the exhibitor and movie patron). It was different, provably different, but called the same thing as a superior device by the company that invented the better thing...real SR. This is about right and wrong and IMAX is in the wrong as was Dolby...they traded on their name to perpetrate a lie. Despite mass acceptance of the 222 SR/A never changed the lie (or lack of performance) that it was. The same is true with LieMax. Don't call something different the same thing. I can guarantee you that the "bitch" level would have been much lower if IMAX had called the digital version of their experience something other than the same name as their 15/70 experience...they are not equivalent, don't deceive people into thinking they are.

The idea of "moving on" is the equivalent of a "news" company spouting a lie enough times that it is passed off as true...just because you can get people to repeat the lie doesn't make it true either.

50 years from now, when some kid is doing research on IMAX...the word should reflect the 15/70 process and the sound that they added to it...somewhere along the way it should reflect their digital efforts but there shouldn't be confusion as to one work meaning multiple things.

The closest equivalent I can come up with at the moment is Cinerama. Anyone looking up Cinerama now (50 years past its inception, give or take) is a 3-strip 35mm process on a very wide, deeply curved screen with multi-channel sound and such. UP70 (Its a Mad Mad Mad Mad World), which brandished the Cinerama name on its release was an UltraPanavision type movie that didn't share much in common with the other things in Cinerama and has gone down in history as an Ultra-Panavision 70mm movie, not Cinerama. Finally ending with 2001:A Space Odyssey...what also was branded as Cinerama, but was really just a Super Panavision 70 and historically is known a Super Panavision movie, not a Cinerama one. The confusion is in the name of a company versus the name of a technology. Cinerama and IMAX have a name that signifies both and it is their responsibility to distinguish different processes akin to what Dolby has done over the years. Dolby was a company and a process at first (as well as the man)...however as new technologies came out...it was Dolby Stereo, Dolby Stereo SR, Dolby Stereo Digital...etc. "Dolby" give the process credibility, the additional information differentiates it from prior processes.

Until IMAX comes up with a name for their digital process, it is LieMax...time an acceptance does not change that it is a lie.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-28-2013, 01:54 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
that is the point, the whole point. Don't call something the same when it isn't. It isn't even "equivalent" on many levels. Hence, it earns the LieMax brandishing by any that choose to state it.

quote: Steve Guttag
Until IMAX comes up with a name for their digital process, it is LieMax...time an acceptance does not change that it is a lie.

Thank you Steve, now can you please move on from that?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-28-2013, 01:59 PM:

There is nothing for me to move on from. If it is a lie, I'll say it is a lie. Why can't you move on? You're the one that is okay with drinking the sand (or Kool-Aid). I haven't really posted much on LieMax before this...Bobby normally is the poster boy on being accurate on anything to do with letters.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-28-2013, 02:00 PM:

(I think I may have said this before but) Imax caused the whole problem when they called their new initiative "Imax." It should have been Imax Jr., or Imax Lite, or Imax 35 or something to differentiate from "real" Imax.

But the bottom line is, unfortunately, the vast majority of people still think of Imax as "bigger, better" and they trust on that. They're just going to movies, they're not obsessed with the technicalities and discussing them on the Internet the way we are.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-28-2013, 02:01 PM:

Steve, IMAX has a process called DMR, DMR is short for Digital Remastering, how do you feel about the DMR process?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-28-2013, 02:14 PM:

I was never really a fan of DMR though it was probably the best process going for bringing small film to big film instead of just doing an optical blow up. The DMR process in a traditional IMAX venue (1.4 screen) just looked unprofessional with so much dead screen (unmasked). Traditional 35 to 70mm blowups were all over the place but IMAX DMRs were better and more controlled. All of their theatres had huge screens and it was like looking at something under a microscope.

Note people do differentiate 70mm blow-ups from shot on 65mm too. In fact, many don't go out of their way to see a blow up in a 70mm festival but those that do acknowledge that it is a blowup.

But hey, at least IMAX called them DMRs.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-28-2013, 02:28 PM:

DMR is really not just one process anymore. Originally intended as a digital remastering process to get 35mm content to look acceptable on 15/70 IMAX screens, it's now whatever IMAX calls it is.

Currently, the official statement regarding DMR is:

quote:
The content being shown in an IMAX theatre is significantly better than the content playing down the hall. The secret sauce in the IMAX mix is DMR – or Digital Re-mastering – a transformative process we invented. This is IMAX’s proprietary method of turning an already powerful movie into a breathtaking IMAX blockbuster with unparalleled image and sound quality. IMAX spends months on location and in the editing room of its DMR facilities with the director and technical teams of each film – planning the shots, re-mixing the sound, meticulously adjusting the saturation, contrast, brightness and hundreds of details in virtually every frame to present the film at its best.

It’s often done after the film is shot, but leading directors are increasingly asking IMAX to join the moviemaking process from the very start. For a growing number of Hollywood movies, IMAX is part of the film’s DNA.

That means, oftentimes, an IMAX movie is conceived as an IMAX movie – with the filmmaker working with IMAX to decide which parts, for example, should be shot with an IMAX camera, what kinds of techniques make the most of the IMAX screen, sound and theatre, and how the drama should unfold to take advantage of IMAX’s larger format, richer color, sheer scale and impact.

So, everything and nothing can be called DMR, it's a bit like a horoscope, there is always some truth in it...

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-28-2013, 03:28 PM:

quote: Sam D. Chavez
For that matter Dolby is using "sound is half the picture" tag lines

What are you talking about? Sam, Dolby has used "Hear the whole picture" or "I heard it in Atmos" or "At the heart of great cinema is great sound"

Terry,

Are you familiar with paraphrase?

"I heard it in Atmos" is even more absurd than the paraphrase I used.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-28-2013, 04:44 PM:

Reading through the replies, I think I got some clarity on what I feel about IMAX and Liemax.

I think The Dark Knight , while it gave me a really good IMAX experience with the expanded film size, it probably introduced some lack of direction in what IMAX should have gone into from the beginning for cinemas. Considering the traditional 15/70 IMAX ratio was great for science museums, someone should have predicted that IMAX in movies had a better future for regular aspect ratios and not the very rare event movie scenario we saw with TDK . Part of the transition from film to digital should have also included a focus on just making the film look great on bigger screens with a traditional movie aspect ratio and rebrand it as IMAX-CINEMA where people won't go in expecting the same old tall screen which very few movies are going to use anyway. People then would go in with different expeectations of what IMAX-CINEMA is. Not necessarily a big tall screen. But a width wise wall to wall screen that adapts old 70MM type screens into the digital age. That would avoid seeing those ugly screens that look like a piece of blank drywall hanging loosely from the ceiling with the image projected on only a portion of it.

They should have come up with remaking current auditoriums using the regular masked screens and just forget about the traditional IMAX screen as we know it in a movie theater. Maybe as digital resolutions improve, they can remake science museums with the traditional IMAX aspect ratios and use the cinema oriented aspect ratios in the multiplexes. And without the distraction of pretending to be an old IMAX with that charade of a tall screen and the distractions of being compared to film, maybe IMAX would have retained their focus to advance further and not give ideas to multiplexes that they are better off reinventing the wheel on PLFs or looking at audiences buying Liemax tickets and thinking that they can get away with "almost good enough". Imax introduced that concept that "almost good enough" is more than enough for their goals and they planted those seeds into the Regals and AMCs in adapting the same philosophy for PLFs.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-28-2013, 05:05 PM:

See now...that all sounds reasonable to me.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-28-2013, 05:25 PM:

Fundamentally, IMAX has been trying to IMAX Digital as being the same as its previous 15/70 format. It's like selling someone a Corvette, but with an economy car engine & transmission tucked under the hood.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
IMAX has a new digital camera, so I am sure they will continue with "Filmed in IMAX"

IMAX has been working on this "new" digital camera system for years. IIRC they started talking about developing a digital camera system not long after starting their digital conversion of IMAX theaters. The latest buzz suggests it will be a 4K system, which isn't any higher than the resolution of several competing cinema camera systems. Red has cameras that can do 5K and 6K. Meanwhile it seems the Arri Alexa is the most popular cinema video camera system going and it only shoots 2.8K and 1080p. We'll see how well this IMAX digital camera does against its competitors once it is released.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I would also add that IMAX also has the "event movie" status that the others don't really have. The chains will open up anything in premium large format theatres whereas there is an exclusivity to what IMAX will show.

That almost sounds like you're trying to claim IMAX has exclusivity on certain movie titles. That isn't the case with digital. Any Hollywood movie shown in an IMAX Digital theater can be seen in a variety of other theaters, sometimes with better image quality. Back in the 15-perf 70mm days IMAX theaters did indeed have exclusivity with some IMAX-filmed documentaries. Other movies, such as Everest, were shown on IMAX 15/70 screens, theaters with other 15/70 brands (like Iwerks) and 8/70 theaters as well.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
As far as I know, Dolby Atmos essentially uses an advanced form of panning to place sounds at the desired location, probably to keep the system compliant with lower density configurations.

The CP850 has data entered about its given theater's speaker systems, their operational status and the geometry of the room. It takes object-based and bed-based sound data in the Atmos file and renders the mix according to the specific parameters of the room.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Proprietary formats are a way for the industry to secure their monopoly on a certain technology. That's why Dolby, Iosono and Barco all have developed their own closed sound formats, but the industry as a whole would benefit from more open standards, just like the current LPCM implementation. I don't see any technical reasons why at least Atmos and Iosono could not use the same, open object based audio format.

The downside with an open format is progress happens at a painfully slow pace. For example, the people responsible for web development standards have been working on HTML5 for more than a decade and the spec still isn't finished. It may be a work in progress until 2020. The SVG graphic format is an open standard that's been around since the late 1990s; support for it is still scattered. The DCI folks can't agree on how to use the 16 audio channels in its digital cinema standard. IMHO, development of an open object based audio format would have been impossible when dealing with those steering committees.

quote: Edward Havens
Bobby, do you work at a theatre that has an IMAX screen, either digital or 15/70? I suspect the answer is "no," because I do, and I see what the audience split is between IMAX and non-IMAX, every day. I'm not talking about dollars. I'm talking about the number of tickets sold, butts in the seats. I'm talking about the number of calls I receive on a daily basis. If you honestly think the public hasn't accepted IMAX digital en masse, it's because you aren't there dealing with it day in and day out.

Edward, having known a few theater managers, including one of my best friends who passed away last year, I know for a fact theater managers don't have the free time to quiz everybody going in and out of the auditorium to get their honest opinion on why they visited that particular theater.

I don't dispute the likelihood you get some customers gushing about their perceptions of IMAX Digital. But if you really did a more scientific survey you would definitely get a lot of responses like, "well we just came from dinner and the movie we wanted to see was starting at 7:30 and it just happened to be on the IMAX screen. We didn't feel like standing around until 8:30 just to save $3 per movie ticket." If you surveyed every one of your customers on why they chose your theater instead of another complex elsewhere most would respond, "it was the most convenient location".

A couple other theater managers participating in this thread have made the same points.

quote: Edward Havens
I've never seen or heard THX being marketed as a sound system, because sound is only a portion of what it takes for a theatre to get THX certification.

Regarding THX, most of the participants in this forum understand what THX really does, but nevertheless it's early logos did say "Lucasfilm Ltd. THX Sound System" very clearly on the Wings, Broadway, Cimarron and Grand THX trailers.

quote: Steve Guttag
Which leads me into the question of is it important that consumer understand a technology for it to be valid. The 100 year history of cinema proves that the consumer rarely if ever understands (or cares) about the technology. They will make up in their minds what something means and be satisfied with that explanation.

Praise coming from an uninformed opinion, like a customer gushing about IMAX Digital without really knowing any of the specifics about it, is not something that can be counted on over the long term.

It reminds me about the early days of DTS, back when Universal was attaching the DTS "flying disc" trailer on every 35mm release print. A lot of people were walking out of theaters talking about how great Jurassic Park sounded in digital when they really listened to it in Dolby SR optical.

quote: Steve Guttag
I was never really a fan of DMR though it was probably the best process going for bringing small film to big film instead of just doing an optical blow up. The DMR process in a traditional IMAX venue (1.4 screen) just looked unprofessional with so much dead screen (unmasked).

IMAX started going downhill with that DMR initiative. DMR got a lot more content put on IMAX screens, but with some serious trade-offs. IMAX didn't set any standards on what could be DMR'ed or not. Some of the 35mm blow-ups to 15/70 looked somewhat decent. But then they got into blowing up HDTV resolution crap to 15/70 and that has looked like blurry, out of focus garbage. The change to digital completed that sad yet business minded transition.

I never expected Hollywood studios to embrace filming in 70mm again, despite what Christopher Nolan has done with IMAX film cameras. Starting in the mid 1990s when the stadium seated theater building boom began 5/70mm really needed to make a big comeback. We started getting all these big screen theaters, some of them with sizes of 70' and 80', but outfitted with 35mm only. Theater chains had an opportunity to push for 70mm but they didn't bother. Hollywood was only too happy to stick with 35mm, despite how dim and unsteady 35mm can be on a giant sized screen.

quote: Pravin Ratnam
They should have come up with remaking current auditoriums using the regular masked screens and just forget about the traditional IMAX screen as we know it in a movie theater. Maybe as digital resolutions improve, they can remake science museums with the traditional IMAX aspect ratios and use the cinema oriented aspect ratios in the multiplexes.

+1 to that.

I, for one, can't stand this silly wall-to-wall and floor-to-ceiling unmasked multiplex theater screen approach. It doesn't accomplish what true 15-perf 70mm giant screens were able to do (filling most or all of the viewer's periphreal vision). Even if the ceiling is raised a few feet in height and the screen moved forward a couple rows it still does NOT get the job done.

Real movie theater screens can be gigantic in size, but they need masking and curtains. Scope should always be bigger than the flat format, but very few of these premium big screen theaters treat Scope in that manner. Fundamentally, scope is a smaller format in pixel count on DCPs. That sucks. I think that needs to change sometime in the future otherwise the scope format is going to disappear in the long term.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-29-2013, 12:14 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson

That almost sounds like you're trying to claim IMAX has exclusivity on certain movie titles.

Nice try Bobby, but that is not what I said. IMAX will only open a certain number of titles and not everything gets to the big IMAX screens. The movie chains will open almost anything in a premium large format theatre.

And technically the DCP or the 15/70 print of the DMR files that IMAX is showing is exclusive to IMAX and IMAX theatres alone. Just in case you are confused, premium large format theatres cannot use an IMAX DCP.

Whether or not you believe if there is in fact anything really done to the image and sound for an IMAX DMR is for you to decide. I think you need to come to your own conclusions on that.

quote: Pravin Ratnam
I think The Dark Knight , while it gave me a really good IMAX experience with the expanded film size, it probably introduced some lack of direction in what IMAX should have gone into from the beginning for cinemas. Considering the traditional 15/70 IMAX ratio was great for science museums, someone should have predicted that IMAX in movies had a better future for regular aspect ratios and not the very rare event movie scenario we saw with TDK . Part of the transition from film to digital should have also included a focus on just making the film look great on bigger screens with a traditional movie aspect ratio and rebrand it as IMAX-CINEMA where people won't go in expecting the same old tall screen which very few movies are going to use anyway. People then would go in with different expeectations of what IMAX-CINEMA is. Not necessarily a big tall screen. But a width wise wall to wall screen that adapts old 70MM type screens into the digital age. That would avoid seeing those ugly screens that look like a piece of blank drywall hanging loosely from the ceiling with the image projected on only a portion of it.

While I agree with you on the need for masking, the wall to wall screen without masking is for marketing purposes first and foremost, IMAX and all of the chains want you to see the wall to wall screen when you enter. The illusion of how big the screen is what they want regardless of what aspect ratio the movie is shown in.

One thing I applaud IMAX for is that they show the coming attractions and the countdown trailer in scope for a scope movie and full size for a full size movie, at least that is what is done in my territory. What Cineplex does is show all of the commercials in flat and then the coming attractions in scope or flat, then the feature presentation gets a snipe in flat, the AVX logos are then shown in flat, the Dolby Atmos trailer gets a flat snipe and then the movie is shown in scope when it is a scope movie.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Back in the 15-perf 70mm days IMAX theaters did indeed have exclusivity with some IMAX-filmed documentaries.

What are you talking about back in the day? 15 perf 70mm is not gone. IMAX still has exclusive distribution rights to about 30% of the IMAX filmed documentaries. How they distribute the inventory of these titles is up to IMAX. Currently IMAX is scanning the 70mm films for 4K distribution.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-29-2013, 12:32 AM:

quote:

quote:
quote: Edward Havens
Bobby, do you work at a theatre that has an IMAX screen, either digital or 15/70? I suspect the answer is "no," because I do, and I see what the audience split is between IMAX and non-IMAX, every day. I'm not talking about dollars. I'm talking about the number of tickets sold, butts in the seats. I'm talking about the number of calls I receive on a daily basis. If you honestly think the public hasn't accepted IMAX digital en masse, it's because you aren't there dealing with it day in and day out.
Edward, having known a few theater managers, including one of my best friends who passed away last year, I know for a fact theater managers don't have the free time to quiz everybody going in and out of the auditorium to get their honest opinion on why they visited that particular theater.

I don't dispute the likelihood you get some customers gushing about their perceptions of IMAX Digital. But if you really did a more scientific survey you would definitely get a lot of responses like, "well we just came from dinner and the movie we wanted to see was starting at 7:30 and it just happened to be on the IMAX screen. We didn't feel like standing around until 8:30 just to save $3 per movie ticket." If you surveyed every one of your customers on why they chose your theater instead of another complex elsewhere most would respond, "it was the most convenient location".

So the answer was "No, I do not now nor have I ever worked at a movie theatre with an IMAX screen, but I'll just go ahead and project what I want and feel on everyone who attends an IMAX screening." Got it. Thanks.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-29-2013, 07:05 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The CP850 has data entered about its given theater's speaker systems, their operational status and the geometry of the room. It takes object-based and bed-based sound data in the Atmos file and renders the mix according to the specific parameters of the room.

Well, that's rather obvious. But I was rather referring to the technique that's being used to create the actual output of the distinct channels. Dolby (probably) uses a rather straight-forward panning algorithm whereas Iosono uses a WFS algorithm. And I guess that Dolby did in fact also look at WFS for their Atmos implementation, but since WFS works only properly with very dense speaker layouts and also places strict requirements on the acoustics of the room it's being implemented in, they probably went for the "intelligent panning" alternative, because that way, the system remains compatible with rooms with a lower speaker density.

quote: Bobby Henderson
The downside with an open format is progress happens at a painfully slow pace. For example, the people responsible for web development standards have been working on HTML5 for more than a decade and the spec still isn't finished. It may be a work in progress until 2020. The SVG graphic format is an open standard that's been around since the late 1990s; support for it is still scattered. The DCI folks can't agree on how to use the 16 audio channels in its digital cinema standard. IMHO, development of an open object based audio format would have been impossible when dealing with those steering committees.

I agree that, if you leave this to some sort of consortium to figure it all out, it takes years and the end result is often an overly complicated, over-engineered piece of crap that still misses some essential features. But it doesn't always need to go this way. Somebody could come up with a competing implementation to Dolby Atmos and decide to open up the format itself, hopefully to increase the rate of adoption, just like it originally happened with HTML for example, before this whole W3-Consortium stuff happened.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
What are you talking about back in the day? 15 perf 70mm is not gone. IMAX still has exclusive distribution rights to about 30% of the IMAX filmed documentaries. How they distribute the inventory of these titles is up to IMAX. Currently IMAX is scanning the 70mm films for 4K distribution.

There is no reason to fool ourselves. We all know that, just like 35mm, 15/70 is a dying breed. What else could be the reason that even the biggest IMAX screens in the world are being outfitted with their 2K projection system?

quote: Edward Havens
So the answer was "No, I do not now nor have I ever worked at a movie theatre with an IMAX screen, but I'll just go ahead and project what I want and feel on everyone who attends an IMAX screening." Got it. Thanks.

I do not see any reason for this cynicism that almost equates to arrogance, at least this is how it comes over the wire... It has been stated before by many people around here that the general public probably doesn't know the difference between 15/70 and 2K IMAX. Still, the general public has been lied to and that's what rightfully upsets many people around here and it doesn't matter if that started 5 years ago, it is still happening.

And I do agree with Bobby et all: Because IMAX doesn't bring anything really special to the table, IMAX might face the same fate as THX in the foreseeable future: Become as irrelevant as THX is right now.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-29-2013, 10:11 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
And I do agree with Bobby et all: Because IMAX doesn't bring anything really special to the table, IMAX might face the same fate as THX in the foreseeable future: Become as irrelevant as THX is right now.

Fair enough, you don't see a future for IMAX. Well I don't agree with Bobby, I agree with Edward, the average moviegoer has accepted the IMAX digital experience, I would say that to the average moviegoer, IMAX has brought something special to the table in the 2x2K projection, a larger screen, a brighter picture and enhanced sound etc. You might not think that nor might I but I am betting on the buyer who is buying the tickets. Also, I don't fall for the bullshit notion that IMAX is doing well just because they happen to occupy a certain showtime. I might believe that if there was no premium involved, but customers are not going to pay a premium for something if they don't feel it is worth it, it doesn't matter what time the showtime begins.

I will say that IMAX is probably at the point where they can't expand anymore in North America at least, I think they have recognized that most of their growth will come from overseas. That won't stop them from opening a location here or there but there won't be a lot of new locations.

With premium large format locations, they will continue to gain acceptance and do well, they probably won't do as well as IMAX but they will do well. The whole industry is moving toward higher ticket prices and that will continue. Cineplex served 71 million guests in 2012 and 30% were from higher tier ticket pricing. The industry average is around 22% (that is including IMAX) but right now and for the future the studios will push both IMAX and premium large format for the movies.

I don't see 4K being much of a factor in the short term, even if I was able to seek out 4K, I would have no idea where to look. Cineplex makes no distinction between 2K and 4K and nobody knows if Cineplex even has 4K projectors right now. 4K will need a studio push for it become something very relevant.

Dolby Atmos has a risky future IMO, over the holidays in my area Walter Mitty was pulled from all Atmos theatres, that left no new movie opening in the Atmos format during a very busy period, Cineplex did make sure to advertise Dolby Atmos for the movie Wolf of Wall Street which is just going to confuse some. I don't really see people seeking out Atmos like they do IMAX or PLF but at least Cineplex rolls AVX into the AVX experience which is good IMO. Funny enough, the Hobbit 2 was advertised in Dolby 7.1 surround when people were probably expecting Dolby Atmos.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
It has been stated before by many people around here that the general public probably doesn't know the difference between 15/70 and 2K IMAX.

Nor do they care.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-29-2013, 11:58 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I do not see any reason for this cynicism that almost equates to arrogance, at least this is how it comes over the wire

I asked a simple honest question and got a BS answer. I met the BS answer with the respect it deserved.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
It has been stated before by many people around here that the general public probably doesn't know the difference between 15/70 and 2K IMAX. Still, the general public has been lied to and that's what rightfully upsets many people around here and it doesn't matter if that started 5 years ago, it is still happening.

See, here's the funny thing... it's been five or so years now since IMAX digital rolled out, about four and half years since Aziz Ansari's blog post started this whole "LieMAX" thing and countless thousands of tweets, blog posts, Yelp comments and so on from a group of 15/70 lovers making sure the world knew Theatres X, Y and Z do not have a "real" IMAX screen.

I don't know if I would say IMAX has been lying about the change from 15/70 to digital. You can go back to interviews with Richard Gelfond from the early 2000s where he clearly discusses his seeing the future of IMAX going digital, back when digital projection was still in its infancy. And to the best of my knowledge, IMAX has never said something to the effect of "IMAX digital is exactly the same as 15/70." So to claim IMAX is lying to the public, I believe, is itself a bit of a lie. Or maybe not a lie but a deception, which may be closer to the truth concerning this entire topic anyway. But that is a different discussion for a different time.

This thread is about movie theatre chains taking on IMAX, which as I've stated previously I will not believe until I see any exhibitor have their PLFs in 40-50% of locations, not the 5-15% we're at now.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-29-2013, 12:20 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
I will not believe until I see any exhibitor have their PLFs in 40-50% of locations, not the 5-15% we're at now.

Cineplex in Canada has 158 locations, at 51 one of those locations there is a PLF auditorium that is AVX, 20 locations have IMAX. When Hobbit 2 opened, 7 of the top 10 theatres in my province were IMAX venues. The top 10 theatres in Canada were all IMAX venues and in the United States the top 10 grossing locations were all IMAX theatres. The drawing power of a PLF location is not anywhere close to the drawing power of an IMAX location.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-29-2013, 12:21 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen It has been stated before by many people around here that the general public probably doesn't know the difference between 15/70 and 2K IMAX.

Terry Says; Nor do they care.

How utterly cynical! But H. L. Mencken (paraphrased just to be sure it doesn't piss off Terry).
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

But is this what IMAX aspires to?

IMAX's problem it seems to me is that they failed to define the new digital based show. This could be because they have something to hide as in diminished quality that they of all should be ashamed of, or perhaps bad marketing as in failing to tout the new, diminished experience in a credible way.

The short term danger is if IMAX does not define the new experience in some way, others will. LieMax is a perfect term that sums it up and has a real chance of spreading into popular lexicon.

IMHO, IMAX is working away at laser based projectors so essentially they are holding their nose on the stinky image quality, and treading water until they once again have something special to offer.

The reason people like Guttag are hard on IMAX is because they are capable of so much better. Back in the day, we had small companies like Potts and TECO that made some pretty crude gear. No one complained much as we all knew the price was right and also this was the best they could do as little cottage companies, but IMAX was once awesome and even beyond state of the art, certainly not so currently on either picture or sound.

All this rationalizing about LieMax being good enough to fool the general public doesn't sit well to anyone who knows better.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-29-2013, 12:24 PM:

This industry is very good at cheapening the product delivery at almost every opportunity
CinemaScope originally required mag stereo and colour
quickly mag op then optical only prints
and then fox introduced regal scope same lenses but black and white
Todd Ao started out with 30fps later it was 24 and then finaly a line of 35mm lens
the list goes on
As long as there is butts in the seats they dont care until the butts are not there and then they scratch their heads wondering why

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-29-2013, 12:39 PM:

@Gordon, I totally agree with you. I am carefully watching the grosses at the Scotiabank Toronto since they just recently removed 15/70 from their IMAX auditorium, the Scotiabank Toronto had impressive drawing power for IMAX 15/70. I was lucky enough to see Dark Knight Rises in 15/70 at Scotia for $20 a ticket.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-29-2013, 03:33 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
And technically the DCP or the 15/70 print of the DMR files that IMAX is showing is exclusive to IMAX and IMAX theatres alone. Just in case you are confused, premium large format theatres cannot use an IMAX DCP.

Whoopie freakin' doo, Terry. Either case is not very impressive. A DMR Blow-up of a Hollywood movie to 15/70mm is arguably a wasteful use of 70mm film considering 5/70 could accomplish pretty much the same thing. The DMR 15/70 prints are more wasteful when made from a 2K HDTV resolution movie file. An IMAX DCP is not really any better than a standard DCP and in some cases is considerably worse. It's just 2K resolution with 5.1 (or 5.0) audio. Thousands of standard priced theaters can show movies in 4K resolution and 7.1 surround.

quote: Edward Havens
So the answer was "No, I do not now nor have I ever worked at a movie theatre with an IMAX screen, but I'll just go ahead and project what I want and feel on everyone who attends an IMAX screening." Got it. Thanks.

I tried to be nice about how I put it with the last response, saying what theater managers have the time to do on the job. So I'll just call bullshit to your notions about what the audience has accepted or not. Your conclusion is not anymore accurate than mine.

If you're a theater manager I know for a fact you do not have time to quiz every single person entering and leaving an IMAX Digital screen to get their honest accounts of why they visited the theater at that particular time and what they thought of the experience. Having "butts in the seats" alone is not an outright endorsement of the product. There are other factors putting the butts in seats besides that IMAX logo. You can ignore those factors if you like, but it ruins any credibility of your argument.

I've seen a few movies in IMAX Digital auditoriums. Do I sound like an enthusiastic endorser of the product? For example, I watched Skyfall in an IMAX Digital theater because the Warren Moore Theater's Grand Auditorium and no kids allowed balcony area was already sold out. I had to settle for the LieMAX screen. I watched the first Hobbit movie in the same IMAX branded theater for the only benefit I see with IMAX Digital: brighter 3D.

Insulting me because I'm not a IMAX theater manager is a very hollow tactic. For one, you may be biased, wanting to protect the business of that IMAX auditorium. Next: other theater managers in this forum have been saying the same things I have. Why aren't you getting snippy with them? The technical comparisons I have been making between IMAX Digital, the wannabe LieMAX screens and true large format processes has been correct.

quote: Edward Havens
This thread is about movie theatre chains taking on IMAX, which as I've stated previously I will not believe until I see any exhibitor have their PLFs in 40-50% of locations, not the 5-15% we're at now.

Do any big theater chains have IMAX branded theaters in 40%-50% of their locations? It doesn't look like that to me.

Cinemark has 91 of these "XD" screens and 14 IMAX screens. They're one of the world's largest theater chains. That seems like a significant stat to me, even if the XD thing is even more misleading to audiences than IMAX Digital. There are other theater chains large and small that have more private label premium big screen theaters than IMAX branded ones.

quote: Sam D. Chavez
IMHO, IMAX is working away at laser based projectors so essentially they are holding their nose on the stinky image quality, and treading water until they once again have something special to offer.

It isn't clear that IMAX will have any real exclusivity on the laser projection process. I thought they bought up a bunch of patents on it. But it looks like several projection companies are working on their own laser-based designs.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-29-2013, 04:13 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I watched the first Hobbit movie in the same IMAX branded theater for the only benefit I see with IMAX Digital: brighter 3D.

Bobby, the fact that you came back to the same IMAX branded digital theatre to watch another movie in IMAX digital is interesting. And because you came back because of the brighter 3D is also very interesting. I thought you mentioned that you were going to watch Gravity in IMAX 3D somewhere, did you end up watching Gravity in IMAX 3D?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-29-2013, 04:58 PM:

I have visited the Moore Warren 14 theater a lot of times well before they added the IMAX Digital screen to it. They do a pretty good job with their showmanship and I especially like the no tolerance policy with cellular phone use. Their 14 "standard" theaters, including the two Grand Auditoriums, are THX certified and have 7.1 surround. Their two "director's suites" theaters are also THX certified and have 7.1 surround. The Warren theater has a lot more dressy decor than most theaters, which they insisted on spreading into the IMAX house. That theater is one of very few IMAX branded theaters equipped with curtains.

I didn't get around to watching Gravity again in 3D. I didn't get around to watching The Hobbit again either (to see what HFR was like). The Warren Theater only has it in 2D and IMAX 3D now. I'm satisfied with having watched those two movies in 2D with Dolby Atmos sound.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-29-2013, 05:33 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Dolby Atmos has a risky future IMO, over the holidays in my area Walter Mitty was pulled from all Atmos theatres, that left no new movie opening in the Atmos format during a very busy period, Cineplex did make sure to advertise Dolby Atmos for the movie Wolf of Wall Street which is just going to confuse some.

Both movies aren't exactly movies that would benefit greatly from running on the biggest screen with the "boldest sound" anyway. The theater that I've seen Walter Mitty in was rather large and equipped with Barco Auro, but without a fitting sound-track, the added value of that was almost nil. What I did like though, is the fact that the movie filled the SCOPE-sized screen, which seems to become a luxury in many of those "PLF" concepts...

quote: Sam D. Chavez was the last to post
Nor do they care.

Maybe they did, if they KNEW the difference...

quote: Edward Havens
See, here's the funny thing... it's been five or so years now since IMAX digital rolled out, about four and half years since Aziz Ansari's blog post started this whole "LieMAX" thing and countless thousands of tweets, blog posts, Yelp comments and so on from a group of 15/70 lovers making sure the world knew Theatres X, Y and Z do not have a "real" IMAX screen.

Looks like it's still a matter of concert then, if there are thousands of tweets, blog posts and Yelp comments about this matter.

quote: Edward Havens
I don't know if I would say IMAX has been lying about the change from 15/70 to digital. You can go back to interviews with Richard Gelfond from the early 2000s where he clearly discusses his seeing the future of IMAX going digital, back when digital projection was still in its infancy. And to the best of my knowledge, IMAX has never said something to the effect of "IMAX digital is exactly the same as 15/70." So to claim IMAX is lying to the public, I believe, is itself a bit of a lie. Or maybe not a lie but a deception, which may be closer to the truth concerning this entire topic anyway. But that is a different discussion for a different time.

Everybody expected IMAX to make a move into the digital realm, but I guess that most people that know a bit about the matter would've expected a much more sophisticated digital system than the sub-par product currently being rolled out. And IMAX DOES market it as exactly the same product, they don't even WANT you to know the difference. If you want to know, you have to turn to unofficial sources that aren't reliable, because things tend to change or are different between shows... Their website doesn't list the difference, neither does the marquee on the actual theater.

And whether it's a deception or a lie, talk about splitting hairs... But as far as my dictionary goes, a deception is often used to cover-up a blatant lie...

quote: Edward Havens
This thread is about movie theatre chains taking on IMAX, which as I've stated previously I will not believe until I see any exhibitor have their PLFs in 40-50% of locations, not the 5-15% we're at now.

Those "PLFs" have been around for just a few years and already start to outnumber Digital IMAX locations. In mainland Europe, IMAX doesn't have the same brand recognition and they're moving nowhere fast, the only chain embracing it to a limited amount is Gaumont/Pathé.

And, you know, I really hate this acronym, because there is NO Large Format involved in any of those "PLF" buildouts, the only large thing here is the ego behind the marketing campaings.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-29-2013, 05:58 PM:

I refuse to call these premium priced digital big screen theaters "large format."

I don't know where Edward came up with this requirement of private label big screen theaters to go into 40%-50% of locations before it could be considered that they're taking on IMAX. No major theater chain has IMAX at 40%-50% of its locations. At a 40%-50% level of locations IMAX would be getting totally blown away by the private label premium screens in terms of screen numbers.

Regal has IMAX Digital at 80 locations, all just a single IMAX screen. They have RPX at 62 locations, with a few locations having more than one RPX screen. That's a pretty significant ratio to IMAX branded screens.

Edward mentioned AMC Prime perhaps because its currently only in 3 locations. AMC has ETX theaters in 14 locations. Dolby Atmos appears to be a standard feature with both theater types. I wonder if AMC hasn't added a lot more ETX theaters due to the Sony 4K projectors they use. It's not easy to tell how many IMAX branded theaters AMC has.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-29-2013, 06:27 PM:

Bobby says,

"It isn't clear that IMAX will have any real exclusivity on the laser projection process. I thought they bought up a bunch of patents on it. But it looks like several projection companies are working on their own laser-based designs."

Agreed, but IMAX has real R & D and motivation to stay in "large format" business, so they may come up with something great.

Marcel quotes me as saying "nor do they care". Actually this was part of one Terry's more cynical posts which is why I felt the need to respond.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-29-2013, 06:40 PM:

quote: Sam D. Chavez
Marcel quotes me as saying "nor do they care". Actually this was part of one Terry's more cynical posts which is why I felt the need to respond.

Well, that was not what I intended and it is probably due to a nice, hidden feature of this forum. And a result of you not using the quote tag as intended [Wink]

. My guess is that it searches for the first match in reverse order and puts the name of that poster besides it. In this particular case it also added "was the last to post".

As you can see in the quote above, it puts your name there, but I didn't explicitly tell it to do that.

Edit: I figured out that it is easily fixable, but upon trying to do so, I was reminded that I'm not supposed to rewrite history: Sorry, the time limit for editing your post has expired.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-29-2013, 09:08 PM:

No problem with the mis assigned quote and I must confess I've never learned to do this the right way.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-29-2013, 11:17 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
and IMAX DOES market it as exactly the same product, they don't even WANT you to know the difference. If you want to know, you have to turn to unofficial sources that aren't reliable, because things tend to change or are different between shows...

I hear what you are saying, both you and Edward make enough valid points, but I think Edward gets it a little more right that you do. I do believe Gelfond has said that IMAX is not just about 15/70 it is more than just that, therefor he is not really lying. Is he? I think he even addressed situation in how the chains wanted separate branding.

Some of the people on here make the claim that IMAX means 15/70 and without 15/70 it is not IMAX. I don't really know about that claim to honest. I always thought IMAX meant giant screen, and you were closer to that giant screen because of specific design to the theatre, that is what it always meant to me growing up. If I were to walk into a MPX or digital conversion theatre, I might feel as those the screen was not as big as I assumed it to be. But on the other hand, the IMAX cinema that I go to is a purpose built IMAX venue that is in a multiplex and the screen is in fact not as wide as the largest former THX theatre in the same complex. Does that not make it an IMAX theatre? Remember, the theatre I am talking about is a purpose built IMAX venue that only has 262 seats in it and has a screen that is not as wide as the largest 500 seat theatre in the same complex.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
and IMAX DOES market it as exactly the same product, they don't even WANT you to know the difference.

Marcel, you are not exactly correct. IMAX 15/70 presentation usually run a pre-show at the beginning that explains what you are about to watch, I saw this pre-show on every 15/70 presentation I have seen. IMAX digital runs a different pre-show and then clearly states after the countdown trailer that the presentation is powered by "DLP Digital Cinema Technology"

Also, titles that are "The IMAX Experience" are Hollywood movies that have undergone the DMR process. I have yet to see a traditional filmed in IMAX documentary use the term "The IMAX Experience"

But yes, I can see how some might find it misleading on the IMAX website. The IMAX website does not make it exactly clear if the theatre is film or digital for most theatres.

The listing for the Airbus IMAX, Stephen F. Udvar-Hazy Center is clear on the IMAX website that Catching Fire The IMAX Experience is 15/70. It is called an IMAX theatre. The same cannot be said about the Bob Bullock theatre in Austin nor can the same be said about the Ford Museum.

But overall, Edward gets it right, most moviegoers do not view IMAX in the same way we do on this forum.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-30-2013, 01:24 AM:

quote: Sam D. Chavez
No problem with the mis assigned quote and I must confess I've never learned to do this the right way.

Copy the text you want to quote, click the POST REPLY button, then on the reply screen where you normally type your response you will see a button below called QUOTE. Click that and then paste your quoted text in between the quote code.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-30-2013, 02:22 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I tried to be nice about how I put it with the last response, saying what theater managers have the time to do on the job. So I'll just call bullshit to your notions about what the audience has accepted or not. Your conclusion is not anymore accurate than mine.

Of course you call bullshit. It's a classic move. Personal Incredulity. Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you make out like it's probably not true.

quote:
If you're a theater manager I know for a fact you do not have time to quiz every single person entering and leaving an IMAX Digital screen to get their honest accounts of why they visited the theater at that particular time and what they thought of the experience. Having "butts in the seats" alone is not an outright endorsement of the product. There are other factors putting the butts in seats besides that IMAX logo. You can ignore those factors if you like, but it ruins any credibility of your argument (sic).

I don't need to quiz every single person entering and leaving an IMAX digital screen to get their honest accounts. But when I see the same people coming back to my theatre time and time again, seeing movies on my IMAX screen time and time again, regardless of what type of movie it is, I can make logical conclusions. When I have people ask my why they should see the movie they want to see in IMAX, and then thank me for the suggestion at the end of their movie, I can make logical conclusions. Because I am there five days a week, eight to twelve hours a day, seeing how people react to The IMAX Experience, I can make logical conclusions.

Oh, and when you keep falling back on the same "points" time and time again to support your argument, it ruins all credibility to your argument.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I've seen a few movies in IMAX Digital auditoriums. Do I sound like an enthusiastic endorser of the product? For example, I watched Skyfall in an IMAX Digital theater because the Warren Moore Theater's Grand Auditorium and no kids allowed balcony area was already sold out. I had to settle for the LieMAX screen. I watched the first Hobbit movie in the same IMAX branded theater for the only benefit I see with IMAX Digital: brighter 3D.

Well, aren't you a prince?

quote: Bobby Henderson
Insulting me because I'm not a IMAX theater manager is a very hollow tactic. For one, you may be biased, wanting to protect the business of that IMAX auditorium. Next: other theater managers in this forum have been saying the same things I have. Why aren't you getting snippy with them? The technical comparisons I have been making between IMAX Digital, the wannabe LieMAX screens and true large format processes has been correct.

If you think I am insulting you, you have some serious thin skin.

The main problem here is, you keep bringing up points I'm not arguing to prove a case I'm not arguing. I'm not arguing that 15/70 is inferior to digital. I'm not arguing about anything technical. I am arguing about mass public acceptance, which you refuse to acknowledge.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-30-2013, 03:08 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I hear what you are saying, both you and Edward make enough valid points, but I think Edward gets it a little more right that you do. I do believe Gelfond has said that IMAX is not just about 15/70 it is more than just that, therefor he is not really lying. Is he? I think he even addressed situation in how the chains wanted separate branding.

This is just splitting hairs and accomplishes nothing, nobody is referring to what Gelfond said, he can say everything he wants, that doesn't change history. IMAX has always been more than just a film format, but IMAX has also been synonymous for its 15/70 film for decades. Before they silently started to switch to digital, they themselves made sure everybody knew that. And as I stated before, almost everybody would've expected them to eventually move away from film, once the technology allowed it. Well, they obviously didn't wait until the digital technology was up-to-standard, even 5 years later, their system is not significantly better than that other theater down the hall...

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Some of the people on here make the claim that IMAX means 15/70 and without 15/70 it is not IMAX. I don't really know about that claim to honest. I always thought IMAX meant giant screen, and you were closer to that giant screen because of specific design to the theatre, that is what it always meant to me growing up. If I were to walk into a MPX or digital conversion theatre, I might feel as those the screen was not as big as I assumed it to be. But on the other hand, the IMAX cinema that I go to is a purpose built IMAX venue that is in a multiplex and the screen is in fact not as wide as the largest former THX theatre in the same complex. Does that not make it an IMAX theatre? Remember, the theatre I am talking about is a purpose built IMAX venue that only has 262 seats in it and has a screen that is not as wide as the largest 500 seat theatre in the same complex.

Even before there was MPX, there were scope screens that were wider than some IMAX screens. And you never heard me telling that screen size is the ultimate measure, actually, just the opposite. Screen size has almost nothing to do with how close you sit to the screen and how "immersed" you are in the movie. But resolution and brightness are two very important factors. IMAX Digital doesn't remotely come close on that resolution aspect and brightness is not a big issue on medium sized screens either. Wall-to-wall, bottom-to-ceiling sized screens and luxury seating haven't been exactly a novelty since the multiplex building boom and stadium seating conversions started. I can visit a multitude of local multiplexes with OK sound and wall-to-wall, bottom-to-ceiling screen and sit somewhere in the front and my experience is "just as good" as that famed "Digital IMAX experience" and I even don't have to pay a hefty premium for it...

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Marcel, you are not exactly correct. IMAX 15/70 presentation usually run a pre-show at the beginning that explains what you are about to watch, I saw this pre-show on every 15/70 presentation I have seen. IMAX digital runs a different pre-show and then clearly states after the countdown trailer that the presentation is powered by "DLP Digital Cinema Technology"

And that's only because the exhibitor does this, many museum and purpose-built locations also offer small exhibits and glass windows to get a glimpse into the booth. But that's the exhibitor that invested millions in the IMAX brand. IMAX HQ is doing quite the opposite, they do everything to conceal that the stuff called IMAX in that multiplex is just a cheapskate ripoff of "the original". The multiplex also has NO interest at all in claiming that their room is in any way sub-par to any of the original build-outs. They got into the IMAX game rather cheap and it might give them a competitive advantage while it lasts, they're part of the lie... or deception...

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Also, titles that are "The IMAX Experience" are Hollywood movies that have undergone the DMR process. I have yet to see a traditional filmed in IMAX documentary use the term "The IMAX Experience"

Yeah, sure. So, a documentary filmed in IMAX is just IMAX and a movie blown up to 15/70 OR projected in oversized 2K is "The IMAX Experience"? So, The Dark Knight Rises is about 1/3rd "IMAX" and 2/3rd "The IMAX Experience"? Even if that would be true, I guess it's not the slightest bit confusing... or... misleading?

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
But yes, I can see how some might find it misleading on the IMAX website. The IMAX website does not make it exactly clear if the theatre is film or digital for most theatres.

Not exactly clear? Let's keep it this way: It doesn't make it clear at all. There is no "more information" button or something that lists some technical specs regarding the theater.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The listing for the Airbus IMAX, Stephen F. Udvar-Hazy Center is clear on the IMAX website that Catching Fire The IMAX Experience is 15/70. It is called an IMAX theatre. The same cannot be said about the Bob Bullock theatre in Austin nor can the same be said about the Ford Museum.

Yet again, this is the exhibitor at work, not IMAX HQ. I guess they got sufficient inquiries about it, so they put it on their website or maybe they're just proud about the fact they show it in a REAL Large Format.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
But overall, Edward gets it right, most moviegoers do not view IMAX in the same way we do on this forum.

I guess we all got that part right, still that doesn't justify lying to them. Or as Edward put it, deceive them.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-30-2013, 09:49 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The Warren Theater only has it in 2D and IMAX 3D now. I'm satisfied with having watched those two movies in 2D with Dolby Atmos sound.

I looked on the website for Warren 14, they make no mention of THX or Dolby Atmos. Are you sure you saw it in Atmos?

quote: Marcel Birgelen
So, The Dark Knight Rises is about 1/3rd "IMAX" and 2/3rd "The IMAX Experience"? Even if that would be true, I guess it's not the slightest bit confusing... or... misleading?

Dark Knight is not a traditional IMAX movie yes it has some IMAX sequences but end to end it is not an IMAX movie, IMAX movies are usually documentaries. I think we can all agree The Dark Knight was a rarity in that it got studio support in telling the audience where to see it in 15/70.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
They got into the IMAX game rather cheap and it might give them a competitive advantage while it lasts, they're part of the lie... or deception...

At the end of the day, it really is not going to make much a difference to the average moviegoer.

quote:
IMAX has always been more than just a film format,

I forgot to add, to me IMAX was always a very large screen and documentary films. I never once associated a Hollywood type movie with IMAX until in and around The Dark Knight release.

I personally think the buzz of "filmed in 15/70" is over. Catching Fire had footage filmed in the format and it got almost no press or fan boy talk. I thought there would be more talk about it and such but that did not happen. It will be interesting to see that happens when "Interstellar" is released, I am almost certain there will no chance that it will be released in 15/70 in my area.

quote: Edward Havens
I am arguing about mass public acceptance, which you refuse to acknowledge.

I don't think Bobby can accept it or maybe he is afraid to accept it. This past weekend "The Hobbit 2" grossed about $29 million, 17% of the gross came from just 300 IMAX screens, these types of numbers are simply astonishing.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-30-2013, 11:41 AM:

You claim that all those people went to those Imax theaters BECAUSE they are Imax theaters, but you can't seem to fathom that a huge chunk of those grosses are "by default," meaning that those people would have wound up in those auditoriums with or without the Imax badge out front.

Do some people "seek out" Imax? Definitely. Does every customer in an Imax theater even realize he's in an Imax theater? Doubtful.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-30-2013, 11:45 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
but you can't seem to fathom that a huge chunk of those grosses are "by default," meaning that those people would have wound up in those auditoriums with or without the Imax badge out front.

Bullshit, I have already addressed your dumb claim that consumers will automatically pay the surcharge for IMAX just because you slot it into a certain time. Mike, have you even been to an IMAX movie?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-30-2013, 12:07 PM:

Yes, you idiot. I've mentioned the fact several times. In this thread actually.

I think being in this business for 35+ years qualifies me a little bit to have a valid opinion on what people will or will not do in a situation. How long have you been in it?

Go ahead, next time you are at an Imax show, interview the audience one by one and ask them why they chose THIS particular showing. I'll bet your answers will range from "Well duh, it's IMAX dude!" all the way to "I dunno, I came with these guys." More close to the latter than the former.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-30-2013, 12:21 PM:

Mike, I don't think you really understand the grosses and averages for movies especially when it comes to the IMAX screens. The Hobbit 2 grossed on average $7600 per location this weekend. Outside of small towns like yours, most theatres are playing the Hobbit 2 on multiple screens at these locations. The per screen gross will be even less if the box office numbers were reported based on screen average.

The Hobbit grossed $18500 per screen factoring out the other screens at the location. Are you trying to make the ridiculous claim that it did so well because it was slotted in at 7pm or 9:30pm?

Yes the higher ticket helps with the gross for IMAX but not enough to skew the average that high. The movie is performing very well in IMAX locations, there is nothing you can do to dispute that.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-30-2013, 12:30 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
Of course you call bullshit. It's a classic move. Personal Incredulity. Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you make out like it's probably not true.

Edward, you have no way to back up your claim (audiences are unanimously embracing LieMAX) with any specifics. Throwing around your authority as a theater manager does nothing get around it. In terms of scientific hypothesis your claim cannot be proven.

quote: Edward Havens
I don't need to quiz every single person entering and leaving an IMAX digital screen to get their honest accounts. But when I see the same people coming back to my theatre time and time again, seeing movies on my IMAX screen time and time again, regardless of what type of movie it is, I can make logical conclusions.

You're jumping to conclusions and not proving your point. You don't know what's going on in the heads of every single customer unless you actually ask them, and even then there's no guarantee you'll get a completely honest answer. Marketing companies try as hard as they can with focus groups, surveys, etc. and even then they classify their results as not being scientific.

You rudely dismissed my reasons for visiting the Warren Moore's IMAX theater with that "aren't you a prince" remark, completely missing or ignoring the point. Do you think I'm the only person who ever set foot in an IMAX Digital theater who was less than thrilled with the quality of the product?

Location, location, location. That's really the biggest factor putting butts into the seats at movie theaters. If that wasn't the biggest factor all the bad theaters many of us love to hate wouldn't be able to stay in business. Here in Lawton the Carmike 8 is best theater in town in terms of presentation quality, but the Central Mall 12 theater has much higher ticket sales despite being a lesser quality theater. More people go there because it's in the mall, near the center of town.

Certain fans of IMAX Digital love to talk about the box office grosses of IMAX Digital theaters while ignoring some important factors, like location. A bunch of these IMAX Digital screens were added on or retrofitted into theaters that already had very high customer traffic levels. IMAX Digital takes over the biggest room in a high traffic theater, add in the surcharges for The IMAX Experience and 3D, not to mention taking over the best show times and its pretty easy for IMAX to come up with very impressive yet very colored box office numbers.

In Oklahoma City, the Warren Moore 14 and AMC Quail Springs Mall 24 were already the most busy theaters in the OKC area. AMC converted one of the biggest rooms in its 24-plex to an IMAX Digital screen while Warren built a new auditorium on the north side of their building. I doubt if the addition of IMAX Digital has made a huge difference in either theater's overall attendance numbers.

quote: Edward Havens
Oh, and when you keep falling back on the same "points" time and time again to support your argument, it ruins all credibility to your argument.

I have been repeating the points because it doesn't seem like you're listening to any of them. If I'm wrong about any of those specific points would you care to actually disprove any of them? Throwing around the "I'm an IMAX theater manager" card doesn't refute anything I've said.

quote: Edward Havens
If you think I am insulting you, you have some serious thin skin.

The thickness of my skin is besides the point. The tone of your responses isn't polite.

quote: Edward Havens
The main problem here is, you keep bringing up points I'm not arguing to prove a case I'm not arguing. I'm not arguing that 15/70 is inferior to digital. I'm not arguing about anything technical. I am arguing about mass public acceptance, which you refuse to acknowledge.

You're assuming every audience member in an IMAX Digital theater sees The IMAX Experience in the same positive light. I believe the truth is more complicated.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
IMAX has always been more than just a film format, but IMAX has also been synonymous for its 15/70 film for decades. Before they silently started to switch to digital, they themselves made sure everybody knew that.

Prior to the rollout of IMAX Digital just about every 15-perf 70mm based IMAX theater had display cases showing 15-perf 70mm film next to 4-perf 35mm. They were proud of that gigantic size difference in film formats. Some IMAX theaters I visited were designed so the projection booth was visible to the public behind large glass windows. IMAX wanted customers to get the point that this wasn't any ordinary film projection system.

IMAX went completely in the opposite direction with digital. In being at least misleading to the public they have made themselves vulnerable to the all these Johnny come lately house brand big screen concepts.

If the public doesn't know or care about any of the technological particulars that make up The IMAX Experience and its high ticket price they have nothing of reference to use in measuring these other premium house brand big screen theaters. To the customer it may appear all these acronym labeled theaters are all the same. And that opens the door for theater chains to take misleading tactics another step farther and cut corners to increase profit margins with the premium big screen concept.

If IMAX had been more open and honest about the specifics of IMAX Digital from the start, including making clear distinctions between the film and digital formats the movie theater chains might have been forced to compete with IMAX on its level with those house brand premium big screens. There might have actually been healthy competition to raise the quality bar higher. Instead, we could be going in the reverse, downward direction. Since the public doesn't know or care about the specifics the theater chains can do whatever they want with their premium screens. IMAX isn't going to call them on any compromises that might be taking place -like installing single projector 3D instead of dual projector 3D.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-30-2013, 12:44 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
visiting the Warren Moore's IMAX theater

quote: Bobby Henderson
Do you think I'm the only person who ever set foot in an IMAX Digital theater who was less than thrilled with the quality of the product?

But you went back a second time?

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 12-30-2013, 12:51 PM:

Bobby, of course a retrofitted IMAX screen is going to go in to a location's largest auditorium. Putting what's going to be a large screen in anything less than the largest auditorium would be pointless.

I've made my point. You don't want to believe it. Fine. I acquiesce that nothing I write will ever convince you that your position might not be entirely correct. I accept that, to borrow a line from one of my favorite movies, having a conversation with you is like a Martian talking to a Fungo. I can make a point about how you haven't spoken to every theatre manager operating an IMAX screen about their experiences with their guests and instantly dismiss your opinion because of it, but you won't see the irony or acknowledge the fallacy in that point. You're just going to keep thinking what you want, unable to open up to the possibility that you might be uninformed in one or two avenues of thought.

So have a good life, Bobby. I am done with you. Of course, you'll need to respond to this post, to always have the last word. I know how important that is to the likes of you. So knock it out of the park, Sparky. Shellac me. Give me my due.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-30-2013, 01:03 PM:

The media is starting to comment on more of Premium Large Screen expansion. I would assume the box office reports will eventually report on premium large screen averages as well as IMAX averages.

Premium Large Format

“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” and “Iron Man 2 are pushing Hollywood to another record-breaking year at the box office.

But moviegoers didn’t just flip for Katniss Everdeeen and Tony Stark. The reason that the business hit a new high-water mark goes beyond a handful of blockbusters.

Older audiences turned out in force, “Gravity“ reminded ticket-buyers about the power of IMAX and 3D, and horror movies proved that people prefer getting scared in packs.

That’s the good news. Before studio executives pop the champagne, it’s also worth noting that 2013 marked the release of some of the biggest bombs in film history - a murderer’s row of duds including “R.I.P.D.“ and “The Lone Ranger“ that left moviegoers asking, “why?“

To guard against another series of write-downs and lost profits, TheWrap has cooked up six essential take-aways from the year that was. It’s a prescription studios should consider following to the letter, otherwise the next “After Earth“ could be yours.

HALLOWEEN ISN’T THE ONLY TIME FOR HORROR

Horror films were among the year’s most consistent box office performers, as studios discovered that audiences like to get scared whatever the season. Not so long ago, horror was a genre that was largely confined to Halloween, but “The Conjuring,“ “The Purge,“ “Mama“ and “Insidious : Chapter 2 all opened at different points of the fall, winter and summer, drawing crowds of moviegoers looking to get frightened.

But the genre has become important in other ways. These films have some of the widest profit margins in the business, and are frequently produced for a fraction of what most films cost to make. Indeed, “Insidious” producer Jason Blum has become a phenomenon because of his low cost, high thrills formula and it’s being widely emulated throughout the industry.

“The Purge” and “Insidious: Chapter 2,” both of which Blum produced, cost a mere $3 million and $5 million to produce, and made $89.3 million and $160.4 million worldwide, respectively. Films without Blum’s fingerprints, still had his DNA. For instance, “The Conjuring” required just $20 million to shoot and brought in $316.7 million in global ticket sales.

Horror films are social experiences. Even in an age where the internet provides a cornucopia of entertainment options that are instantly available, scary movies still entice ticket buyers to turn off the iPhone, meet up with friends and hit the multiplex. After all, it always helps to have an arm nearby to grab in fright.

THE BIGGER PICTURE

The recipe for major box-office success traditionally has been to score with “four quadrants” - men and women, younger and older. But big screens have never been bigger than they were in 2013, and may be creating a “fifth quadrant.”

Moreover, films such as “Gravity,” with its vast outer space vistas, reminded viewers of the format’s power.

Eight of the top-grossing movies globally were screened in IMAX and domestically, the format on average accounted for 15 percent of opening weekend grosses - up 35 percent from last year. IMAX was even bigger overseas, and is in the forefront of China’s booming market, which is projected to grow by 36 percent this year. IMAX’s grosses will be up by 55 percent and it recently cut a deal with Chinese exhibition giant Wanda that could add 120 more screens.

It’s not just Imax. Premium Large Format screens brought in $223 million this year, a 23 percent hike from last year, and all of the top 20 films played in the format. Grosses at Cinemark, the largest PLF provider, were up 14 percent domestically and 19 percent globally.

So, settle in, grab your popcorn and get blown away.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-30-2013, 01:08 PM:

I am not expert on this. But Mike, I gotta say I have a hard time believing that people will just casually pay for an IMAX showing just because it is in prime time. Maybe some don't care if it's IMAX or not and one or two alpha people in the group drive the decision. the surcharges are not exactly cheap to have a significant number of random walkups just because the movie is at a certain time. At least, that is my guess based on my personal interaction with friends and family. I am sure you met some who do. But is that a significant number to use to downplay IMAX revenues as just being a byproduct of good times?
But I will say that IMAX is the default for the "big format" and by lowering standards with IMAX, they opened the door for PLFs to offer consumers more options and I can see a viewer coming to the multiplex and choose among a PLF and an IMAX showing based on whatever is at a convenient time.

And for me as a consumer, usable screen size(so the unused top and bottom of movies in IMAX doesn't count as a bigger screen experience to me) is more important than the underlying technology. This is where I straddle both sides of the argument. If the digital resolution is not remotely comparable to 15/70 , then just projecting it on a big classic IMAX screen is unacceptable just to say they gave you a big screen experience.
From what I have seen, Liemax images are perfectly acceptable as a moviegoing experience if the surcharges were reduced because it is not awe inspiring to me but it is preferable to the typical multiplex large screen in the digital age.

However, Terry, let's face it. IMAX surcharges remained the same or went up for for the Liemax we experienced with other movies on smaller screens and MUCH SMALLER pictures (courtesy the cinematic aspect ratios of 2.35:1 or 1.85:1) on an unmasked smaller liemax screen. Yes, IMAX is still doing fine because of that momentum created by earlier IMAX movies. Let's see how those revenues hold up as more PLFs are set up. Hopefully, at some point, PLFs will hopefully keep improving and make the difference so small that consumers would rather pay the smaller surcharge to watch a PLF presentation. If IMAX reduced the surcharge ala PLFs do and rebranded it, they will temper expectations and break free from comparisons to original IMAX.

The best of both worlds would be for IMAX to continue to remain strong but they wise up and offer theaters a superior product where the IMAX margins are not big enough to tempt the theaters to cut out the middle man on an almost good enough experience.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-30-2013, 01:43 PM:

quote: Pravin Ratnam
However, Terry, let's face it. IMAX surcharges remained the same or went up for for the Liemax we experienced with other movies on smaller screens and MUCH SMALLER pictures (courtesy the cinematic aspect ratios of 2.35:1 or 1.85:1) on an unmasked smaller liemax screen. Yes, IMAX is still doing fine because of that momentum created by earlier IMAX movies.

I agree with about the surcharges remaining the same or going up. Scotiabank Toronto charges $20 a ticket for IMAX, when the ended 15/70 they kept the pricing the same.

quote: Pravin Ratnam
The best of both worlds would be for IMAX to continue to remain strong but they wise up and offer theaters a superior product where the IMAX margins are not big enough to tempt the theaters to cut out the middle man on an almost good enough experience.

I am not sure but perhaps the current 2x2K projectors will be upgraded to 4K at some point. I am sure if that can easily be done without entirely new projectors.

quote: Pravin Ratnam
I gotta say I have a hard time believing that people will just casually pay for an IMAX showing just because it is in prime time.

Mike obviously has very little experience, the IMAX locations in my entire province are reserved seating. For big movies such as The Dark Knight Rises or The Hobbit 2, the movies are sold out well in advance, often a week or two ahead of time, so his idea of people showing up and buying tickets at the box office because it is at the perfect showtime of 7pm is full of shit.

The movies that are being played in IMAX are getting an "event" status push.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-30-2013, 01:43 PM:

Terry should apply for a job at the IMAX marketing department.

You know what I think is bullshit? The general public choosing a movie and theater based on whether it is running in "IMAX" or not. They choose it on what they deem acceptable, because of previous experiences and what's convenient for them. Will they just walk away if they're at the box office and are asked to hand over the premium? Do they even realize they're paying a premium?

And I agree that much of this IMAX success is just by default, because a popular movie happens to run in the biggest room and that room happens to be the Digital IMAX room...

So, those numbers are tainted.

Regular moviegoers might develop a special preference for a certain theater and maybe they even prefer Digital IMAX, because all the other theaters in the vicinity are just plain bad.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-30-2013, 01:54 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Regular moviegoers might develop a special preference for a certain theater and maybe they even prefer Digital IMAX, because all the other theaters in the vicinity are just plain bad.

That is one of the advantages of IMAX digital is it not? All presentations should be the exact same. So if the customers knows they are getting a quality presentation at IMAX, then they might just return?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-30-2013, 03:34 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
That is one of the advantages of IMAX digital is it not? All presentations should be the exact same. So if the customers knows they are getting a quality presentation at IMAX, then they might just return?

Exactly the same is a very dangerous statement. Even a presentation in THX certified theater A isn't exactly the same as a presentation in theater B and that was even true when THX still stood for something. Additionally, IMAX has proven that their IDF implementation is inconsistent at best, as even I pointed out already. And even if it would be 99% consistent, I would still not accept this as the Gold Standard of movie exhibition and the general public should neither.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-30-2013, 03:50 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Mike obviously has very little experience, the IMAX locations in my entire province are reserved seating. For big movies such as The Dark Knight Rises or The Hobbit 2, the movies are sold out well in advance, often a week or two ahead of time, so his idea of people showing up and buying tickets at the box office because it is at the perfect showtime of 7pm is full of shit.

Who are you, Tom Petrov? You're beginning to sound more and more like him.

Quit putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say that all of the people at an Imax show are there by accident, default, or otherwise. I simply said that SOME OF THEM ARE. That's the part you refuse, or are too stupid, to understand.

I'll give you a great example right now. When we went to see Gravity at the LieMax in Boise, I, me, Mike, was the one who insisted that we see it there because I wanted to see "how good" the Imax 3-D experience was. I had with me: My wife, a friend, her husband, and another guy from the theatre convention. ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE would have been just as happy seeing the movie in a good old standard theater. I was the only one who insisted on us going to the Imax theater (and I paid for the cab ride for the five of us). I did play it up as a special occasion. Come on you guys, it's the Imax 3-D show! Did we all come out raving about how awesome it was? The movie, yes. The theater....it was OK, but not necessarily worth the extra money. And the 3-D glasses were heavy and uncomfortable; I remember some of us commenting we were glad the movie was so short for that reason.

So are we repeat Imax customers, any of the five of us? Maybe. If there's a movie we want to see, at a time we want to see it, and it's in an Imax theater, I would probably see it there again. Especially if the movie was not extremely popular, because if you went into one of the other screens you'd run the risk of it being a shoebox. But I don't think I would cruise across a city to get to an Imax theater again. And if I was familiar with a venue and knew that the standard theater was a nice big one with good sound, I'd pick that over the Imax anytime and feel just fine about it.

You and Edward just keep insisting that every dollar taken in by Imax is "because it's Imax" and I'm saying that's not always true. I can't figure out why that's so hard for you guys to admit or comprehend. You seem to want to deal in absolutes, but when dealing with humans that's an impossible thing.

I'll give you another thought. We have Dolby 3-D at my theater. I would guess that a full half of the people at any given 3-D show are NOT there because it's 3-D. They're there to satisfy their kids, or because it's opening week of a hot new movie, or they were brought along by a significant other, or quite possibly they just happened to show up and wanted to see the movie that night and didn't even know it was in 3-D. And even the ones who DO like 3-D and sought us out for that reason are probably not even aware what kind of 3-D we have. So maybe out of a hundred people, there are maybe a dozen true fans of Dolby® brand 3-D. But they're all there; they paid the surcharge, so in your view every one of those patrons would be HUGE DOLBY 3-D FANS.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-30-2013, 04:35 PM:

It's clear a lot of movie-goers are willing to pay extra to see a movie on the biggest screen in a movie theater complex. The rise of these theater chain branded big screen theaters shows the big screen doesn't necessarily have to carry an IMAX brand.

I explained my own reasons for watching Skyfall in the Warren Moore's IMAX theater. Neither Terry or Edward seemed interested in understanding that. They only wanted to look at the situation in ridiculously absolute terms.

I wanted to watch Skyfall in the age 21 & up only balcony in one of their two THX-certified Grand Auditoriums. The show was sold out. The IMAX-branded theater was the next alternative. I could have watched the movie in another smaller, standard priced auditorium but I would have had to wait around another hour just to save $3 per ticket. In the interest of saving time and not looking like a cheapskate to my girlfriend I picked the IMAX show. It didn't have anything to do with IMAX being great as the dog's bollocks.

Terry tried to refute this kind of scenario by listing an overpriced IMAX theater in his area featuring reserve seating. I'd be willing to bet most IMAX branded theaters aren't reserve seating based and don't charge $20 per ticket either. I paid $13 to see Skyfall in Warren's IMAX house and $16 for The Hobbit in 3D (which I chose to see in IMAX Digital solely for the brighter dual projection 3D, the ONLY benefit I see with IMAX Digital).

quote: Mike Blakesley
Who are you, Tom Petrov? You're beginning to sound more and more like him.

I've had a few F-T participants private message me on Facebook saying the same thing over the past year. I have wondered the same question since Terry's posting style is very similar.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 12-30-2013, 04:40 PM:

Wow, I leave for a while and this thread explodes... I don't know if anyone is still reading this beyond the current combatants, but I'll be optimistic and add some info, hopefully without fueling the fire.

I agree with the original topic of non-IMAX PLF's becoming more prevalent as time goes on, and probably to the detriment of IMAX. After all, if a theater chain can market their PLF to drive traffic as much as the IMAX brand can (which is marketing that will benefit all theaters that have IMAX theaters, including their competitors), there is little reason for that chain to keep their IMAX affiliation. Every mainstream movie that has an IMAX version is available to non-IMAX theaters with PLF screens.

IMAX has definitely cashed in on their past to fund their future. Each year, that past reputation becomes less of a factor, because each year, less and less people will have experienced or will remember seeing a movie in a classic IMAX theater. That means that IMAX must continue to build their brand or risk it becoming trampled in the march of progress.

As long as it has some value it will be used, though. Just look at Polaroid-branded TV's for an example. WTH does Polaroid have to do with TV's? Nothing, but people still recognize the brand, so it's better to name a TV "Polaroid" than "Qwetzel" or something else that is unknown.

quote: Bobby Henderson
There is no Internet equivalent of the newspaper stack ad -where various theaters in a region can be measured against each other in at least some kind of basic way to see how each is showing a certain movie. There is a lot of sound & projection variables in digital cinema that aren't being clearly disclosed to the movie-going public.

I'll raise my hand to counter that statement. Since 1995, The BigScreen Cinema Guide (which I publish) has provided information about what the various theaters are offering for each presentation (digital sound, stadium seating, digital cinema, THX, Open Caption, AVX/ETX/RPX/etc.)

Here is a sample from the Showtimes page for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug in HFR 3D near Denver:

As always, the quality of this information is directly related to the effort put forth by the theaters. It's only as good as the information they provide, so if they don't mention Atmos, we can't display it. The free-form comments that appear under the showtimes are provided by the theaters, so 4K, Auro, RPX, etc. will be displayed if provided, and we highlight the information we deem important into the other columns (currently no U.S. theaters are advertising Auro shows).

As far as other information about theaters and what installations are in them, we are dependent upon the theaters and our readers to provide that information. We work with our Featured Theaters (the ones we have formal relationships with) to provide good information about what they provide to their customers. We also provide our readers with the Reader Comments feature so that they can provide snippets of information about their experiences, info about screens, etc., and even ticket pricing. I would love for those here that have that information about theaters to share it on our site!

The best tool a chain wanting to leverage their PLF over IMAX has is information. It's the basics of marketing: what makes your product better and/or different than the competition?

If the PLF is better, then educating the audience is key to establishing the foothold and eventually kicking IMAX to the proverbial curb. Through effective marketing, any head-start or advantage that IMAX may have can be countered, but the marketing must also be supported by an excellent experience, or the marketing will ring hollow.

That's a tough hill to climb, as I think that IMAX does a pretty good job of marketing to the public. Its brand is prevalent in advertising like movie posters, trailers, and TV commercials. It even managed to get its brand inserted into the title of movies:

e.g. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug An IMAX 3D Experience

How great is that? Whoever managed that particular feat did a wonderful thing, because it's built-in branding and perceived differentiation that won't be matched by the RPX/ETX/XD's out there.

I do think that it would be advantageous from a branding perspective for all these PLF efforts to have a single brand name, I don't think it will ever happen. Getting all these competing companies to agree on a name, much less some framework of standards to assure consistency is likely impossible. A common brand name is probably not necessary anyway, as the public is becoming trained to see an acronym with an "X" in it and recognize it as the PLF for that theater.

quote: Steve Guttag
My very long winded point is that the consumer's lack of understanding is no excuse to not provided the very best experience that technology and prudent business practices will allow. What the public is buying for that ticket is that experience.

Hear, hear! This paragraph should be the motto of every movie theater!

If every theater were to do business with that basic understanding as their guiding principal, I can't help but think that success would follow. It's the chipping away at that concept that causes shortcuts to be taken, blown speakers not replaced, curtains not installed, and eventually, nothing but the least amount of effort that is absolutely necessary is left.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-30-2013, 05:05 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I paid $13 to see Skyfall in Warren's IMAX house and $16 for The Hobbit in 3D (which I chose to see in IMAX Digital solely for the brighter dual projection 3D, the ONLY benefit I see with IMAX Digital).

Bobby, you bash IMAX digital yet you are a repeat customer.

quote: Scott Jentsch
That's a tough hill to climb, as I think that IMAX does a pretty good job of marketing to the public. Its brand is prevalent in advertising like movie posters, trailers, and TV commercials. It even managed to get its brand inserted into the title of movies:

e.g. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug An IMAX 3D Experience

How great is that? Whoever managed that particular feat did a wonderful thing, because it's built-in branding and perceived differentiation that won't be matched by the RPX/ETX/XD's out there.

I think it is safe say that "Premium Large Format" will be used going forward by the movie studios. I have seen it now on a number of different trailers. I have also seen Cineplex Ultra AVX pop up a number of times on televisions spots.

Eventually premium large format will overtake IMAX for box office, Cineplex has three PLF theatres to every one IMAX venue. Per screen averages, who knows? But the studios will be relentless in pushing PLF going forward.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-30-2013, 05:14 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, you bash IMAX digital yet you are a repeat customer.

Well, this is getting funny. Let me grab a bag of popcorn and fetch some nachos, but please wait until the cheese is properly heated...

- I bash Digital IMAX and I'm a repeat customer.*
- I bash D-BOX and I'm a repeat customer.*
- I bash 2K for big screens and I'm a repeat customer.*
- I bash HFR, and I'm a repeat customer.*
- I bash my current ISP, yet I'm a repeat customer.
- I bash my mobile provider for continuously overcharging me and delivering a general shitty service, but there is no real alternative, and I'm a repeat customer.

But Terry, how can you bash something, if you haven't experienced it first hand at least a few times? Maybe your first impression was a false start? Maybe stuff is different at another location?

* I didn't pay for all the experiences, some of them were provided to me, so that might disqualify me as a "customer" in the strictest sense of the word.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-30-2013, 05:29 PM:

quote:
- I bash Digital IMAX and I'm a repeat customer.*
- I bash D-BOX and I'm a repeat customer.*
- I bash 2K for big screens and I'm a repeat customer.*
- I bash HFR, and I'm a repeat customer.*
- I bash my current ISP, yet I'm a repeat customer.
- I bash my mobile provider for continuously overcharging me and delivering a general shitty service, but there is no real alternative, and I'm a repeat customer.

But Terry, how can you bash something, if you haven't experienced it first hand at least a few times? Maybe your first impression was a false start? Maybe stuff is different at another location?

I always thought that if you didn't like something, you would not return. Bobby returned to the same location to see another movie immediately after his first IMAX experience is interesting. He also said he was considering watching Gravity in IMAX 3D on a second viewing. Bobby even paid for IMAX as well. Maybe Bobby is an IMAX fanboy but is just too afraid to admit it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-30-2013, 05:35 PM:

There you go with that absolute thinking again. Very little in this life is ever perfect. You compromise.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-30-2013, 05:41 PM:

Hey Terry,

I'm also a repeat customer at my current dentist and I must admit, I didn't like the last experience one bit. Still, I will be going again in a few weeks...

Edit:

Mike, you're just one post away from 10,000 [Wink]

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-30-2013, 05:43 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'm also a repeat customer at my current dentist and I must admit, I didn't like the last experience one bit. Still, I will be going again in a few weeks..

Well then, I must say, you're an idiot. [Big Grin]

Posted by Matthew Ortado (Member # 5620) on 12-30-2013, 07:16 PM:

Why is there so much name calling in this thread. It takes the topic off course.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-30-2013, 07:25 PM:

I guess because most of the stuff that can be said has been said and some individual especially likes to play it personal and is using rather ad hominem arguments to try to win the discussion. Which may, quite understandably if I may add, trigger some emotions...

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-30-2013, 07:29 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Well then, I must say, you're an idiot.

It would appear Terry has not ever been to a dentist, or is trying to display his first attempt at humor.

Going to a proctologist is never fun for most people either, we go there because we need to and endure the indignity.

That said, I don't really think this is Petrov as Terry seems to write and speak more clearly, but just as single minded or pig headed as some would say.

I have quite a few friends in Toronto will have them check out who Terry is. Might be interesting.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-30-2013, 07:33 PM:

So let's try this again.

The media is starting to comment on more of Premium Large Screen expansion. I would assume the box office reports will eventually report on premium large screen averages as well as IMAX averages.

Premium Large Format

“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” and “Iron Man 2 are pushing Hollywood to another record-breaking year at the box office.

But moviegoers didn’t just flip for Katniss Everdeeen and Tony Stark. The reason that the business hit a new high-water mark goes beyond a handful of blockbusters.

Older audiences turned out in force, “Gravity“ reminded ticket-buyers about the power of IMAX and 3D, and horror movies proved that people prefer getting scared in packs.

That’s the good news. Before studio executives pop the champagne, it’s also worth noting that 2013 marked the release of some of the biggest bombs in film history - a murderer’s row of duds including “R.I.P.D.“ and “The Lone Ranger“ that left moviegoers asking, “why?“

To guard against another series of write-downs and lost profits, TheWrap has cooked up six essential take-aways from the year that was. It’s a prescription studios should consider following to the letter, otherwise the next “After Earth“ could be yours.

HALLOWEEN ISN’T THE ONLY TIME FOR HORROR

Horror films were among the year’s most consistent box office performers, as studios discovered that audiences like to get scared whatever the season. Not so long ago, horror was a genre that was largely confined to Halloween, but “The Conjuring,“ “The Purge,“ “Mama“ and “Insidious : Chapter 2 all opened at different points of the fall, winter and summer, drawing crowds of moviegoers looking to get frightened.

But the genre has become important in other ways. These films have some of the widest profit margins in the business, and are frequently produced for a fraction of what most films cost to make. Indeed, “Insidious” producer Jason Blum has become a phenomenon because of his low cost, high thrills formula and it’s being widely emulated throughout the industry.

“The Purge” and “Insidious: Chapter 2,” both of which Blum produced, cost a mere $3 million and $5 million to produce, and made $89.3 million and $160.4 million worldwide, respectively. Films without Blum’s fingerprints, still had his DNA. For instance, “The Conjuring” required just $20 million to shoot and brought in $316.7 million in global ticket sales.

Horror films are social experiences. Even in an age where the internet provides a cornucopia of entertainment options that are instantly available, scary movies still entice ticket buyers to turn off the iPhone, meet up with friends and hit the multiplex. After all, it always helps to have an arm nearby to grab in fright.

THE BIGGER PICTURE

The recipe for major box-office success traditionally has been to score with “four quadrants” - men and women, younger and older. But big screens have never been bigger than they were in 2013, and may be creating a “fifth quadrant.”

Moreover, films such as “Gravity,” with its vast outer space vistas, reminded viewers of the format’s power.

Eight of the top-grossing movies globally were screened in IMAX and domestically, the format on average accounted for 15 percent of opening weekend grosses - up 35 percent from last year. IMAX was even bigger overseas, and is in the forefront of China’s booming market, which is projected to grow by 36 percent this year. IMAX’s grosses will be up by 55 percent and it recently cut a deal with Chinese exhibition giant Wanda that could add 120 more screens.

It’s not just Imax. Premium Large Format screens brought in $223 million this year, a 23 percent hike from last year, and all of the top 20 films played in the format. Grosses at Cinemark, the largest PLF provider, were up 14 percent domestically and 19 percent globally.

So, settle in, grab your popcorn and get blown away.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-30-2013, 07:41 PM:

You already posted that exact same article on the last page. The answers are still the same.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-30-2013, 08:30 PM:

One comment about the "real" 15/70 IMAX. I think the resolution was an accident. They were going for a huge, immersive picture that was brightly lit. They wanted the more square aspect ratio to have the height to the image so that the sky/horizon became a part of the experience.

To light the screen size they needed 70mm film. To get the aspect ratio they wanted dictated the number of perfs per frame. They ended up with the resolution due to the size the frame ended up being. No human can possibly resolve the 11k resolution of the IMAX film unless you are WAY too close to the screen.

Now 2k is obviously way too low of a resolution for the IMAX typical viewing distance but it will be interesting to see how much of a noticeable difference there is between 15/70 IMAX and 4k laser projection IMAX.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-30-2013, 11:07 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
I'll raise my hand to counter that statement. Since 1995, The BigScreen Cinema Guide (which I publish) has provided information about what the various theaters are offering for each presentation (digital sound, stadium seating, digital cinema, THX, Open Caption, AVX/ETX/RPX/etc.

I forgot about your web site. It's bookmarked in my copy of Google Chrome now. Nevertheless, there was something to be said for the look of a big city newspaper ad with a couple dozen to several dozen theaters in a market playing a movie and being able to see in print what theaters had what. The NY and LA papers did it best, often because they had the largest ads. I used to clip a lot of those ads, particularly when 70mm was involved. I haven't clipped any newspaper movie ads since the 1990s.

quote: Scott Jentsch
The best tool a chain wanting to leverage their PLF over IMAX has is information. It's the basics of marketing: what makes your product better and/or different than the competition?

The problem is none of the competitors involved (IMAX and its rival premium big screen theaters) are doing that. At best, they're only giving partial information rather than a full account about the projection format and sound format being used. Full disclosure isn't in the interest of IMAX or anyone else running premium big screen theaters.

I usually have to visit this web site to see for sure if a movie's DCP is 2K or 4K. Most theaters don't list the resolution of their digital projectors. IMAX is the only premium big screen concept that you know for sure has two projectors. It's not easy at all to tell which of the theater chain based premium big screen concepts have dual projectors. Very few of them say they have dual projectors.

The same problem goes for the sound. I can look at the web sites for Cinemark, Carmike and several other big chains and find little if anything listed about the sound format used in their premium big screen theaters or standard priced houses. Is the sound 5.1 or 7.1? Is a special format like Auro or Dolby Atmos used? I looked up one of Carmike's "Big D" theaters in Illinois. Supposedly it's equipped with Dolby Atmos, but you would never know looking at Carmike's web site (Frozen featuring a Dolby Atmos mix was playing on that screen when I checked).

These theater chains are expecting customers to do exactly what IMAX expects: just trust the brand name and not concern one's self with any of the specifics that really determine a lot of the value (or lack thereof) in that high priced premium theater ticket.

quote: Lyle Romer
To light the screen size they needed 70mm film. To get the aspect ratio they wanted dictated the number of perfs per frame. They ended up with the resolution due to the size the frame ended up being. No human can possibly resolve the 11k resolution of the IMAX film unless you are WAY too close to the screen.

Don't underestimate human vision. It may not be as sharp as an eagle's eyesight, but it is pretty amazing.

True IMAX and special venue documentaries filmed for that format have used IMAX properly. The giant format screen is meant to fill peripheral vision. Imagery has to be framed with a lot of headroom and plenty of space on the ends. The audience is really supposed to be focusing near the center of the screen. IMAX movies shot for dome screens have to take this extra headroom approach to an extreme.

Hollywood movies are rarely ever composed for giant format special venue screens. They sure as hell aren't edited for giant format screens either. True IMAX movies would hold shots for extended amounts of time. Hollywood movies are rife with fast paced, music video style editing. Add in some shaky cam for good measure. That kind of approach makes action more difficult to follow on a giant screen.

That's something theater operators need to consider when they talk about building new premium theaters with screens upwards of 100' wide. Just because the white paper for a new 4K digital projector says it can illuminate a screen that big doesn't mean it should.

Posted by Manny Montes (Member # 5639) on 12-30-2013, 11:36 PM:

I think there is going to be plenty of space for PLFs and IMAX digital in the marketplace, the trend that some theaters are including both an IMAX and their PLF under the same roof.

I also think that some people come to see the 7pm show of XYZ movie, not because it is IMAX or a PLF but because their kid wants to see the showing of XYZ movie or the showtime works perfectly with their schedule, and on the other hand you have people who call and want to see it on the "biggest screen", there are different strokes for different folks and I think that hopefully competition in the marketplace to IMAX digital and with every company having a PLF of their own should only increase competition and hopefully advance technology and result in more quality presentations for consumers.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-31-2013, 12:35 AM:

quote: Lyle Romer
One comment about the "real" 15/70 IMAX. I think the resolution was an accident. They were going for a huge, immersive picture that was brightly lit. They wanted the more square aspect ratio to have the height to the image so that the sky/horizon became a part of the experience.

I don't think IMAX stumbled up the resolution by accident, they always knew what they were doing. I have a membership to SMPTE and if you go back into some of the documents and journals produced by IMAX in the early days, you get and idea what they defined IMAX to be.

A few things to consider:

1. IMAX described themselves as providing a "high fidelity" image and "high fidelity" sound.

2. While the 15/70 was for a high resolution picture, very little grain and a sharply defined image was the goal. There was very little discussion about high resolution. The term "K" was not discussed. Also, having a stable image was important.

3. The intention was for the audience member was to be able to look up, down, left and right and eye movement was intended. The whole idea of the "pit" area was for the audience member to look down, because the person would look down, they would then more than likely look up and left and right. IMAX conversion theatres of the present day do not have a pit area.

4. Believe it or not, (I am sure some of the members here will flame what I am about to say), it was documented by IMAX in the early 80's that the most important factor (according to IMAX) of an IMAX presentation was for screen/viewing angle relations. The farthest seat was very close to the screen.

5. IMAX did use terms such as "In the movie" or "In the picture" or something alone those lines, it has been a while since I have read some of the documents.

6. The standard was for a 12,000 WATT lamp, that would later change.

7. The smallest 15/70 screen was about 21x33 feet (105 seats) and the largest did not clear 100 feet, it was around 95 feet (980 seats).

8. Sound was 6 tracks, a sub was usually present but not always installed.

9. Another thing IMAX was going for was to remove "Clues" that you were watching a movie.

10. IMAX actually tested a prototype screen that would retract into the roof.

PM me if you want some more info. If you get yourself a membership, the information is all there at SMPTE.

quote: Manny Montes
I think there is going to be plenty of space for PLFs and IMAX digital in the marketplace, the trend that some theaters are including both an IMAX and their PLF under the same roof.

I also think that some people come to see the 7pm show of XYZ movie, not because it is IMAX or a PLF but because their kid wants to see the showing of XYZ movie or the showtime works perfectly with their schedule, and on the other hand you have people who call and want to see it on the "biggest screen", there are different strokes for different folks and I think that hopefully competition in the marketplace to IMAX digital and with every company having a PLF of their own should only increase competition and hopefully advance technology and result in more quality presentations for consumers.

Great post!

quote: Lyle Romer
it will be interesting to see how much of a noticeable difference there is between 15/70 IMAX and 4k laser projection IMAX.

The new Barco projection system will be very close to the original 15/70 aspect ratio. The IMAX digital 3D camera (not sure if it is being used yet) will use existing camera lenses from the 15/70 film cameras. The sensor will be almost the same size as a 15/70 film frame. I really would like to know if the current 2x2K IMAX set up is able to be upgraded to 4K?

quote: Bobby Henderson
Nevertheless, there was something to be said for the look of a big city newspaper ad with a couple dozen to several dozen theaters in a market playing a movie and being able to see in print what theaters had what. The NY and LA papers did it best, often because they had the largest ads. I used to clip a lot of those ads, particularly when 70mm was involved. I haven't clipped any newspaper movie ads since the 1990s.

I agree with you, the newspapers ads from the 1970's and 80's were very good at informing the public of what was at a particular theatre. At least in my territory it was. A moviegoer had a good idea of what a theatre had in such tech such as 70mm or Dolby Stereo etc, things went downhill in the 90's.

Today, it is very difficult to find out what a particular theatre has, the newspapers are useless. Unless you go to Cineplex.com, there is no way of knowing if the sound is Dolby Atmos,or if there RealD 3D, Dolby 3D or Dolby surround 7.1. I don't think the theatres in my area will ever differentiate between 2K and 4K presentations.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-31-2013, 07:00 AM:

Resolution wise... 35mm 1.85 has the approximate resolution of 4K. The notion of 4K comparing favorably to 15/70 is a false one. Now there is a point that I feel increasing resolution (or film image size) will yield diminished returns. Where that is is difficult to define since there are many factors into how an image is perceived.

5/70 was/is my favorite image quality bang for the buck on the various sized screens I've seen (and I prefer it even on small screens). I haven't seen a digital image, 4K or otherwise compare favorably to it. 15/70, while clearly a larger image area and a significantly higher resolution for digital to match benefits a ratio of movie (1.4) that does not lend itself to modern "Hollywood" movies. Perhaps for documentaries...but those rarely benefit from increased resolution. In fact, I've always liked documentaries on 16mm...but that is just me.

For the type of show that classic IMAX has had in museums and other special venues 15/70 allowed them to place the audience close enough where the image was larger than ones normal vision. Smaller film formats would allow one to see the technology (grain for film) to a much greater degree. Note, it wasn't just the film, IMAX also had a projection technology that allowed it to also put out a steadier picture than typical projection technologies. There is nothing in digital, at the moment, that will match its resolution, color and contrast and lasers are not going to change that nor are 4K projectors. Someday, maybe technology in digital will catch up with that...if people still want to see that kind of movie.

Laser projection brings nothing to the image resolution table...it brings light efficiency and possibly improved contrast ratio...something that the higher resolution digital projectors have had an issue with.

But back to my bugaboo with IMAX and its branding. Historically, IMAX has had no problem appending sub-names to its brand to differentiate its various forms. Originally, the domed theatres received the OmniMAX name...however that was later changed to IMAX-Dome. If your theatre ran 48fps, it was IMAX-HD. If you have a screen below the seats as well as the normal one...it was IMAX-Magic Carpet. They were not all just "IMAX" But with digital...why didn't they feel the need to brand the different venue? Or even IMAX-DMR. It was okay to promote something that was an improvement to the standard IMAX theatre...but if one could perceive it as a poor-stepchild to the standard theatre (A theatre that runs widescreen DMRed content or 2K digital content)...well perhaps we should just keep that a secret?

One has to squint pretty hard and look rather sideways to not come to the conclusion that IMAX actively wants to deceive its customers into thinking that their digital experience is comparable to their standard 15/70 experience (quality wise, if by no other metric). And I just don't get it. IMAX-Digital could have been a good promotion point that they could have claimed was a superior experience due to their DMR, dual projection....etc technologies. They don't have the slam-dunk with digital like they did with film where nobody but them was running 15/70 (IWERKS did but they were more than a blatant ripoff, right down to the projector).

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-31-2013, 09:30 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
For the type of show that classic IMAX has had in museums and other special venues 15/70 allowed them to place the audience close enough where the image was larger than ones normal vision. Smaller film formats would allow one to see the technology (grain for film) to a much greater degree.

Features shot on smaller film formats (including 5/70mm) as well as video formats use compositional techniques similar to that of still photography -like the rule of thirds, golden spiral, etc. The movie frame is an important part of the composition. The frame is not something that is meant to fall completely out of the movie-goer's field of view.

Traditional 15/70 IMAX movies shouldn't be composed like that. One can apply something like a rule of thirds composition to the central area of interest in an IMAX film frame, but the overall composition has to be loose with considerable "bleed" off to the edges of the frame, left, right, top & bottom. In human vision we pay attention to what's in front of us and not so much to what's off on the sides of our peripheral vision. When an IMAX shot is properly composed the viewer won't feel like he is sitting way too close to the screen, but the screen is filling much or all of his peripheral vision.

With that being said, I don't have so much of a problem with digital-only big screens being considerably smaller than true IMAX screens. The composition and editorial pace of Hollywood features works on screens only so big. The fixed pixel grid limitations of 2K and 4K projectors require movie screens to be only so big. If the screen is too big the projector has to be deliberately tweaked out of focus to hide the pixel grid. As a result you get soft image quality with no tack-sharp "pop" to it like you would see with good film projection, particularly 70mm.

quote: Steve Guttag
But back to my bugaboo with IMAX and its branding. Historically, IMAX has had no problem appending sub-names to its brand to differentiate its various forms. Originally, the domed theatres received the OmniMAX name...however that was later changed to IMAX-Dome. If your theatre ran 48fps, it was IMAX-HD. If you have a screen below the seats as well as the normal one...it was IMAX-Magic Carpet.

There was also IMAX Solido -I think that was 3D on a domed screen. I remember the Race for Atlantis ride at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas being IMAX Dome 3D, but I don't think they called it "Solido."

The IMAX theaters location map on the IMAX web site is willing to draw separate distinctions for IMAX Dome theaters and 15/70 theaters without 3D capability, but if they're 3D capable they're just blanketed with the generic "IMAX" term. It doesn't matter if it's a museum-based 15/70 3D theater or a modest sized auditorium in an AMC or Regal multiplex (with a smaller, different aspect ratio screen); they're treated on the location map and movie marketing as if they're all the same.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-31-2013, 10:26 AM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
I agree with the original topic of non-IMAX PLF's becoming more prevalent as time goes on, and probably to the detriment of IMAX.

By the end of 2014, AMC will have 80+ premium large format screens. They currently have 28 screens.

Cineplex in Canada is aggressively adding AVX and VIP to a good number of locations. Sometime in 2014, Cineplex will open up their first all VIP theatre complete with valet parking. It will be somewhere around $23 per ticket.

quote: Scott Jentsch
Each year, that past reputation becomes less of a factor, because each year, less and less people will have experienced or will remember seeing a movie in a classic IMAX theater.

I think it is a little too early to tell, but the numbers from the last 15/70 theatre in my area show that since the conversion to digital IMAX, the box office performance for IMAX released titles has decreased at this location. It has only been four months and there is no Skyfall or Dark Knight Rises in 2013, but Hobbit 2 is showing a decrease at this theatre compare to Hobbit 1. This theatre also installed a PLF screen to compete with the IMAX theatre and movies do open on both. I have no interest ever attending this theatre unless they put the 15/70 back in.

The buzz for this theatre was that it was the last remaining 15/70 location in my area. Tickets were always difficult to get and you almost always had to reserve the tickets ahead of time or go to the box office a few days before. This is where I saw all my 15/70 IMAX presentations.

quote: Scott Jentsch
As long as it has some value it will be used, though.

From what I understand, the studio does not pay a fee for a Hollywood movie to be DMR'd, the cost is on IMAX as an incentive for the studio to approach IMAX. There is also no payment for the IMAX name on trailers, posters etc etc. Its like a big partnership but the studios bears the cost of 70mm prints. But you are right, as long as the studios see value in the brand, they will continue to use it.

I don't there is much more room for IMAX in North America. I think at this point they are in all the major markets. In my territory there are a few IMAX locations that are not performing.

quote: Scott Jentsch
I do think that it would be advantageous from a branding perspective for all these PLF efforts to have a single brand name, I don't think it will ever happen.

I think the common name is now "Premium Large Format". I think it would be easy for the studios to cut a DCP trailer with the tagline "See it in AVX" for one chain or "See it in AMC Prime" at another. Or the chains could just add "See it in AVX " for 2-3 seconds after the trailer. Somebody will eventually do either or.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-31-2013, 11:55 AM:

The original imax concept for 1570 was to allow for multiimage projection to be done with one projector unlike what they had done at many pavilions at expo67 with multiple syncronized machines
the original name was actually multiscreen corp
the first Imax film (tiger child) only had 1 short clip that was full frame after it proved to be the highlight of expo70 there next film north of superior was full frame but many other films after it were collages of multi images

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-31-2013, 12:00 PM:

That's how I recall the IMAX history as well. It was described in American Cinematographer back then.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-31-2013, 12:37 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
8. Sound was 6 tracks, a sub was usually present but not always installed.

What would be the reason for having a sub but not installing it? Seems like a venue going for a "premium" experience would be mega-bass at the top of their sound list.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-31-2013, 12:51 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I think it would be easy for the studios to cut a DCP trailer with the tagline "See it in AVX" for one chain or "See it in AMC Prime" at another.

You need to be taken out back and beaten for even thinking that. there are ENOUGH damn versions of trailers as it is these days! Why ONE movie must have over 50 trailers is just asinine.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-31-2013, 02:45 PM:

In the original IMAX sound configuration it was 6 channel being screen left centre right and top
left surround righ surround
sub was a sum from the 4 stage channels

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 12-31-2013, 03:34 PM:

Back in 2010, I wrote an article called IMAX Getting Competition from Many Directions - But Are the Alternatives Really Better?, which coincided with the push by many chains toward what is now starting to be called PLF.

It's a long article, so I won't quote the entire thing here, but this is the start of it:

quote:
With the recent announcement by Regal Cinemas of their new RPX: Regal Premium Experience, IMAX is seeing more and more competition for the wallets of ticket-buying moviegoers.

AMC has their new ETX "Enhanced Theater Experience" screen that will be available soon in California. Cinemark has been opening XD auditoriums left and right, with 22 cities done so far, and more planned. Marcus Theatres was one of the first of the big chains to offer a big-screen alternative to IMAX with their UltraScreens, of which there are now 12 locations in seven states.

All of these promise the paying public an upgraded movie-watching experience, and none of them are limited to the schedule of IMAX-converted movies, and none of them have to pay a licensing fee to IMAX.

I put in some historical background behind IMAX going mainstream, and then bring up the fact that the new RPX screen at the Regal E-Walk 13 in New York City was roughly the same size as the nearby AMC Empire 25's IMAX screen, both of which fell into the same screen size as the target of the infamous "LieMAX" rant by Aziz Ansari.

The final section compared the single IMAX screen here in Milwaukee with the "UltraScreen" PLF that is being done by Marcus Theatres.

quote:
The two UltraScreens at the Marcus Majestic Brookfield in Waukesha both measure 72 feet wide by 31 feet high (which comes to approximately 2.35:1). For a non-3D evening show, an adult will pay $11.00 for general seating.

In comparison, the AMC Mayfair Mall 18 in Wauwatosa (about 15 minutes away) has a new IMAX screen that measures 50 feet wide by 26.5 feet high, which is about 41% smaller than the Marcus UltraScreens. The current price for a non-3D adult evening ticket costs $14.50.

Marcus is definitely offering a value-packed proposition here. The ticket price is $3.50 less and you get a bigger picture. The 24,000 watt sound system can probably keep up nicely with that in the IMAX auditorium, and Marcus also recently upgraded the UltraScreens for 3D projection.

If more movie theaters were to follow Marcus' lead, IMAX would have even more to worry about!

It's great that there is competition in the big-screen market at movie theaters. However, we feel that audiences should get more bang for their hard-earned dollars than what we're seeing announced as alternatives to the IMAX experience. Since the audience is in control (we have the money that theaters want), we need to demand the best possible experiences for that money!

Nearly four years later, and I'm happy to see that the article is still pretty applicable, maybe even more so now.

The current issue of considering "PLF" as a quasi-brand is that it means something different from chain to chain, and probably from location to location within the same chain. Some have Atmos, some have Auro, some are just 5.1, some have dual projectors, some have 2K, some have 4K, etc. You never know what you're going to get.

IMAX has at least done that a little better in defining the sound and picture specifications, with the biggest variant being the screen size. When it comes to IMAX presentations, I would assume dual digital projectors, and roughly a 50-60 foot wide screen. Anything more is a bonus, much like have a Quarter Pounder at the McDonalds HQ restaurant (which was an incredible burger, and I don't like McD's).

Since the chains aren't forthcoming with that information, it's up to the viewers to rely on third-party information. That's largely why I created the Reader Comments section for movie theaters, so that people could share that kind of information, and maybe in some way, pressure the theaters into better experiences. We currently have comments for 684 out of the 6,159 active theaters in the U.S., so it's a good start, but I'd like to see even more.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-31-2013, 03:58 PM:

Scott, if we want to contribute stats to the Atlanta section of your bigscreen site, how do I go about getting screen sizes for the local theaters? Example: I frequent the Regal chains because I get their discount tickets for $7. Do I just ask the managers? Or is there a better way of getting screen size, projector types used in different auditoriums of the complex.

It would be cool to make this site or SCott's site a consumer reports of movie theaters and have light brightness readings, screen sizes, projector resolutions, sound formats by auditorium.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 12-31-2013, 04:13 PM:

It was a long time ago. Maybe the sound transfer was too high for some adjacent space.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-31-2013, 04:30 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
The current issue of considering "PLF" as a quasi-brand is that it means something different from chain to chain, and probably from location to location within the same chain. Some have Atmos, some have Auro, some are just 5.1, some have dual projectors, some have 2K, some have 4K, etc. You never know what you're going to get.

I read your article, great article and interesting. I think the PLF challenge is here and full on with IMAX. And in a way they are competing for the sake of having a luxury/premium theatre and to raise the price of the ticket.

Personally, none of these PLF knock off auditoriums can challenge IMAX when watching a movie in a classic purpose built IMAX theatre. I am lucky enough to have three within driving distance but unfortunately they have been transitioned to digital. For big event movies, these three theatres in my area is the place to be.

I am not a big fan of the IMAX MPX conversion for digital.

The premium experience at a movie is finally here and the prices will probably keep going up, AVX, VIP and IMAX all combined account for 30% of the box office admissions in Canada for Cineplex. VIP tickets are as much as $20 at that is more money than IMAX at a lot of theatres. I take advantage of PLF theatres for the reserved seating and that is about it.

I looked over the Marcus Theatres website, they look like they take presentation and information seriously. Does the Marcus Ultrascreen have masking?

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-31-2013, 08:22 PM:

Isn't the whole point of digital to make film distribution much cheaper and efficient. Maybe these theater chains should get together and negotiate better terms so they can put in more money into upgrading more auditoriums while charging customers a more modest surcharge.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-01-2014, 03:01 PM:

It would be nice if the theater chains went more in that direction. From my perspective it looks like many of them want to price gouge the customer while they can get away with it and perhaps use the private label big screen concept as a means of charging IMAX-like prices without delivering all the specific features that should come along with it.

I looked more closely at the breakdown of IMAX-branded theaters and how they are spread through the movie industry in North America. The numbers are interesting.

United States
AMC has 133 IMAX-branded screens.
Regal has 80 IMAX-branded screens.
Close to 80 IMAX-branded screens are in museums & special venue locations.
The remaining 79 IMAX-branded screens are divided between 25 different theater chains and 3 independent theaters.

CANADA
Cineplex has 19 IMAX-branded screens
Landmark has 5 IMAX-branded screens
Cinemas Guzzo has 3 IMAX-branded screens
10 locations are museum/special venue
Galeries de la Capitale is an independent.

With so much of IMAX' business tied up in AMC & Regal locations I think that leaves considerable room for theater chains who haven't got in bed with IMAX to compete against IMAX Digital on more of a point by point features comparison basis. But that's only if they're willing to one-up what IMAX is doing.

It's going to be relatively easy to beat up on IMAX in terms of sound. A good 7.1 channel system alone will provide a better surround sound experience. Dolby Atmos lifts it up to an entirely different level.

Projection is another matter. IMAX' current setup is mere 2K, which sucks for giant screens, but it is at least a two projector setup. For private label big screens using dual projectors how many have dual 4K projectors? Has any Hollywood studio released a 4K 3D movie yet? I'm under the impression every 3D movie has been strictly 2K. It is going to take a bunch of new technology to deliver 4K 3D? Obviously IMAX must be working on this (provided that this new 4K laser projection system is indeed a dual projector system). Are companies like Christie, Barco, Sony, NEC, etc. going to be able to provide 4K 3D and dual 4K 3D solutions, even laser based?

All of those issues will be important for private label big screen theaters to keep pace with IMAX or surpass it.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 01-01-2014, 04:38 PM:

I don't even need PLFs to exceed IMAX since their surcharges are less than IMAX's. But if they can reduce the surcharge a tad, and increase the number of PLF screens in each multiplex to 3 or 4 instead of the one they have now, that might improve the average moviegoing experience.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-01-2014, 05:18 PM:

Private label big screens vary in price by chain and by location. I've seen some charge just as much as IMAX.

Some theater chains are offering more than one premium screen in a complex. The Santikos theater I visited West of Houston last May had four "AVX MAX" screens, all equipped with Dolby Atmos. The rest of the screens in the multiplex were "AVX." I don't know if that really means anything, but I thought it was impressive for a theater to have four screens equipped with Dolby Atmos.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-01-2014, 08:21 PM:

We have a relatively new Cinemark XD near our house. I much prefer it to the Megaplex Imax stuff that's even closer. At least the Cinemarks XD's are equiped with 4K dlp. I have yet to be impressed by any Imax digital stuff. Only a name it is any more...

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-02-2014, 08:43 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
For private label big screens using dual projectors how many have dual 4K projectors?

The AMC ETX that I have been in (purely because it was the only way to experience Atmos in driving distance) has 2 4k Sony Projectors.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-02-2014, 08:49 AM:

I've never watched a movie on a Cinemark XD screen. It's nice they're using 4K Barco DLP projectors on the XD screens, but plenty of standard priced theaters are using single 4K projectors. What does a Cinemark XD screen do to justify a $2.50-$3.00 premium over a regular admission price?

Is Cinemark using two projectors rather than one to maintain proper 3D brightness on giant screens? The XD page on Cinemark's web site mentions "a Barco projector," which makes me think only one projector is being used. For premium priced theaters with giant screens it seems to me like a dual projector setup is kind of a mandatory thing. If I'm going to watch something in 3D via a single projector system I'm going to see much better results on a smaller screen.

Cinemark XD's term "custom digital surround sound" means absolutely nothing to me. I'd prefer specifics about the sound formats being supported (5.1, 7.1, Auro, Atmos) as well as something about the hardware (QSC, Meyer Sound, THX Certfication, etc.). A theater can install the cheapest, low grade speakers and amplifiers and still call it "custom digital surround sound."

According to Cinemark's XD page on their web site they have 91 XD screens, with 5 more set to open soon. They have 15 IMAX branded theater screens, 7 of which were built for 15/70mm prior to the launch of IMAX Digital. It looks to me like they added 8 IMAX Digital screens and then went on a tear installing these XD systems. There are more of these XD screens than any other private label big screen concept. Regal's RPX appears to be in second place with 62 locations.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-02-2014, 02:24 PM:

Bobby... I haven't been in the booth there yet. Looks to be a single 4K Barco projector with Real-D XL wide angle adaptor on it. The 3-Dee is very bright and sharp, screen is about 75 feet wide. The seating is nicer than in the regular houses, more leg room and the sound is also very nice. Far as I'm concerned it's a much better value than 2K Liemax is. Liemax also costs a lot more than XD. Paul Konen probably knows what they consist of.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-02-2014, 04:44 PM:

Cinemark's XD theaters have Dolby Atmos at three locations:

Fremont, CA - Cinemark Century at Pacific Commons and XD
San Francisco, CA - Cinemark Century San Francisco Centre 9 and XD
Plano, TX - Cinemark West Plano and XD

I can't tell where Cinemark has Auro 3D 11.1 installed, but according to some press releases easy to find on the Internet Cinemark reportedly has a deal to install Auro 11.1 on all XD theaters except for those three that have Dolby Atmos. They're supposed to start installing in "tier 1" markets sometime soon.

If Cinemark can actually get an acceptably bright 3D image out of a single projector onto a large screen that seems like quite an accomplishment. But we'll see how much of an improvement IMAX makes with its 4K laser-based system.

quote: Lyle Romer
The AMC ETX that I have been in (purely because it was the only way to experience Atmos in driving distance) has 2 4k Sony Projectors.

That's interesting. How bright is the image compared to IMAX Digital? I would ask "how sharp" but AFAIK I don't think any movie studio is making 3D movies in 4K resolution yet.

AMC's 14 ETX screens and 3 Prime/THX screens are all equipped with Dolby Atmos.

Regal has Atmos on 22 of its RPX screens. Regal recently made a deal with Barco & Auro to install Auro 11.1 on 20 of its RPX screens.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-02-2014, 07:08 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
If Cinemark can actually get an acceptably bright 3D image out of a single projector onto a large screen that seems like quite an accomplishment.

Cinemark is full of it, according to Cinemark, the system they use is the RealD 3D system which delivers twice the light than other 3D technologies, so I guess they are the best.

quote:
Cinemark provides the best movie-going experience in the industry with RealD 3D and Barco projection.

So I guess Landmark Cinemas does not have the best movie-going experience in the industry? Landmark uses RealD 3D and Barco projection. That is a pretty impressive claim by Cinemark.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-02-2014, 07:48 PM:

Any theater company claiming that they have the best movie experience simply because of what equipment they have is full of crap. First, it's meaningless to the customer. Second, even great equipment can be used to put on a bad presentation.

They'd be better off advertising "our floors are guaranteed not to be sticky!"

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 01-02-2014, 07:49 PM:

http://www.regmovies.com/Theatres/RPX
"you'll agree that RPX is the best movie experience available or your next movie is free"

Hmmmmm, heh heh. Challenge accepted and looking forward to my free movie. Sure I liked the last RPX presentation I went to(Regal atlantic with Atmos), but best movie experience?

The next RPX movie I go to, I will make it a point to go to the manager after the movie and ask for a free movie on the next movie I go to. There is another RPX theater in Atlanta which does not have Atmos(Regal Medlock). Sound aside, what a huge guarantee they are going to have to abide by.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-02-2014, 08:17 PM:

They'll probably make you fill out a large form detailing WHY you weren't happy. It'll be such a pain in the butt that you will say "screw it" and walk off. (Let us know how this pans out!)

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-03-2014, 12:14 AM:

Does RPX have masking? If not that's an instant fail.

The problem is you wouldn't WANT to return.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-03-2014, 01:44 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
They'll probably make you fill out a large form detailing WHY you weren't happy.

I'd WANT them to know why I wasn't happy. Still haven't been to an RPX mainly because of the bloated price. I'll be happy to watch a movie in one for free and fill out the form anyway even if I don't get an additional movie for free.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-03-2014, 03:57 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
Does RPX have masking? If not that's an instant fail.

It looks (warning: high-res picture) like they're using something I would call "anti-masking". Including some blue lightning behind the screen on the sides for added coolness.

If they replace those led strips with color programmable ones, they could do something like Philips Ambilight...

Your mileage may probably vary depending on your location, but RPX doesn't seem to include "proper masking" by default.

Additionally, that wall treatment... ugh, looks like some kind of high-tech kindergarten to me, I'm just missing the ball pit.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-03-2014, 06:00 AM:

Marcel, thanks for finding that picture. Holy wall treatment! That is aweful. And the floating screen with no masking and curved corners. Yikes!

If that is the Regal "Premium" Experience what does that say about their regular auditoriums?

There's actually a new Regal opening soon near me with a $2 ticket grand opening preview next week. I think I'll see Thor in RPX for $2 (assuming they don't add the upcharge) and see how it is. The website doesn't say if it has Atmos.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-03-2014, 09:22 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Any theater company claiming that they have the best movie experience simply because of what equipment they have is full of crap. First, it's meaningless to the customer. Second, even great equipment can be used to put on a bad presentation.

It's standard operating procedure in marketing to repeat over and over again that your product is better than that of your rivals and the customers can't get something better anywhere else.

Take a look at this 3 1/2 minute video Barco produced about Carmike's first Auro 11.1 installation in Canton, GA. The video includes all kind of big claims from theater executives. The customer interviews are odd since they talk a whole lot more about the bass response rather than the effect delivered by all those extra speakers on the walls and ceiling.

quote:
Marcel, thanks for finding that picture. Holy wall treatment! That is aweful. And the floating screen with no masking and curved corners. Yikes!

That floating, slightly curved screen with radiused corners reminds me of an old 1970's era Sony front projection TV screen.

The graphics on those walls is very tacky. The color scheme reminds me of the Houston Astros' 70's-80's era uniforms. I can't stand that badly spaced, diagonal RPX lettering. It's definitely something thought of by a non-artist, perhaps even a committee of sales people. The RPX logo looks like it used the old late 70's Letraset Stop typeface as a starting point. The color treatment on the X throws its weight out of balance with the other two letters.

Most of the logos for these Brand X Big Screens, perhaps BXBS for short, suck really badly. One thing I can hand to IMAX is they've kept their brand consistent and professional looking. Too many of these other BXBS brands stink of home-brewed, amateur hour trash. They want to be like IMAX but they can't get their branding done nearly as well as IMAX.

I simply cannot stand Carmike's Big D logo. I could go into a lot of detail about why I don't like it, but I won't (for now). Cinemark's "XD" logo isn't very good; that scraggly looking X doesn't do anything for me, but at least they kept it simple and didn't try working in a bunch of microscopic words into it like Carmike did with its Big D logo. Marcus Theaters' UltraScreen DLX theaters might be pretty nice, but the logo for that premium concept is just kind of blah. This goes on and on. Very few of these BXBS things have a professional look to them.

AMC's ETX and Prime logos aren't bad. At least they're simple and clean looking. AMC might have actually used real graphics people to do the work.

IMHO, if all these different theater chains want to get their own BXBS logos onto movie posters, TV commercials, etc. more often they need to dramatically improve their branding efforts.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 01-03-2014, 10:21 AM:

The RPX in Regal Atlantic Station (Atlanta) is nowhere that tacky. For this guarantee, I will go to another Regal(Medlock) and if it's anywhere close to that picture, I will have an easy time spelling my reasons out.

I think the RPX in Regal Atlantic had regular masking for Gravity, but I can't remember for sure as I have been conditioned by multiplexes lately to disregard masking. I know for a fact that some of the common width auditoriums in the Regals I go to used to have top and bottom masking, but nowadays , they don't bother using them. I don' tknow if the adjustable masking mechanism needs repair and they decided not to spend any more money on it or if it's a deliberate policy. The common height auditoriums still seem to use proper masking.

Anwyay, Marcel, that RPX picture looks like something out of a circus or as Bobby put it, the tacky old time Houston Astros color scheme.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-03-2014, 03:54 PM:

Which RPX auditorium is that pictured above? It looks horrible. However I think one of the staple features of RPX is the floating no-masking screen. Regal hates masking. They no longer fix it when it breaks on existing screens, just open it up all the way and call it a day. But they don't have anyone who knows what they're doing working for their company so that's not surprising.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-03-2014, 06:56 PM:

It's this one.

It might be a misguided example, but it is a nice indication what that "PLF" surcharge may bring to the table... As you can see, there is also no Dolby Atmos (or at least not a fully fledged installation) or Barco Auro in this particular room.

Plenty of multiplexes around here were originally built with proper common height masking, some even have curtains. In many cases, the movable masking was opened up and abandoned during the transition to digital projection. In some cases it was even removed during the replacement of the screen with a silver screen...

I guess that many managers think that, in the digital world, masking is no longer necessary, because of the "sharp and clean edges" that digital projection can produce.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-03-2014, 11:12 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
One thing I can hand to IMAX is they've kept their brand consistent and professional looking.

IMAX has excellent marketing, almost all of the people on here do not support IMAX much at all but there is a whole segment of the movie going crowd that does support it. IMAX quietly but successfully changed their marketing in 2012, it is hard to tell the difference but it did change slightly.

I think XD, AVX, MAX or whatever are not good at all. The marketing is just not there. I don't mind AMC Prime, the marketing of Prime looks decent but it gets away from the two-three letter naming strategy which is important. I don't think we are going to see 4K marketed all that much, we'll have to see. I wonder if the shelf life for AMC ETX is done and that is why we are seeing AMC Prime?

Dolby did a smart move to move away from 5.1 or 7.1 surround marketing concepts, the marketing folks behind Atmos clearly got the point that the customers who are new to Dolby are usually the younger generation. They do not give a shit that sound is 5.1, 7.1 or 64.1. Dolby Atmos "Hear the Whole Picture" is not bad.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-06-2014, 09:32 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
IMAX has excellent marketing, almost all of the people on here do not support IMAX much at all but there is a whole segment of the movie going crowd that does support it.

Marketing and branding are actually two different things. IMAX' marketing sucks for all the misleading tactics, plain and simple.

IMAX' branding isn't bad, but it's not super fantastic either. The IMAX logo is little more than Eurostile Bold Extended lettering. Their "word mark" is clean and to IMAX' credit they've typically done a tasteful job in how they've used it and they've stuck with it for decades, growing its brand equity. Keep in mind they set their branding template back in the 1970's, long before computers allowed amateur hour to infect much of the graphic design field. They had to use actual professional designers, ad agencies, etc. to get their branding and graphics work done. Considering much of their business has traditionally been in museums, where customers tend to be more affluent, better educated and more discriminating in terms of visual taste, IMAX really didn't have any option to go with the wacky circus tent kind of theme seen in some conventional multiplex movie theaters.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I don't mind AMC Prime, the marketing of Prime looks decent but it gets away from the two-three letter naming strategy which is important.

I disagree. It's actually refreshing to see a movie theater have a premium priced auditorium that doesn't carry a three letter acronym, particularly an acronym containing the letter X. The only movie theater brands worthy of carrying the letter X in them is IMAX and THX. That's it. All these other labels (RPX, ETX, AVC, XD, Xtreme, SDX, TitanXC, UltraScreen DLX, etc.) ring hollow for being so brashly unoriginal.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Dolby did a smart move to move away from 5.1 or 7.1 surround marketing concepts, the marketing folks behind Atmos clearly got the point that the customers who are new to Dolby are usually the younger generation. They do not give a shit that sound is 5.1, 7.1 or 64.1. Dolby Atmos "Hear the Whole Picture" is not bad.

Dolby couldn't label Atmos with a numerical scheme even if they tried. I don't think Dolby's current branding scheme speaks to any particular generation. It's still pretty conservative looking, even though they dumped the Eurostile and Helvetica lettering and replaced it with Morgan Sans, a more technical looking type family. I miss Dolby's old branding scheme even if it was rooted in 1970's design. IMHO, Dolby had no business trying to apply Dolby-centric branding to 7.1 surround. There is no Dolby-specific encoding scheme in 7.1 Linear PCM audio. A theater does not need any Dolby-branded hardware to play 7.1 surround.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-06-2014, 10:03 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Marketing and branding are actually two different things. IMAX' marketing sucks for all the misleading tactics, plain and simple.

Bobby, don't be silly, you and I know branding and marketing are different but the concepts go together hand in hand. Anyone who believes that a company should create marketing campaigns without the company branding concepts in mind is an idiot. Brand awareness is rarely created/achieved without good marketing.

You still view IMAX based on your narrow viewpoint, the general population does not care that there is a difference between 15/70 and digital. The marketing and branding behind IMAX is very sound. It is still is the leader in premium priced movie going experiences.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-06-2014, 11:44 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The marketing and branding behind IMAX is very sound. It is still is the leader in premium priced movie going experiences.

It's got far less to do with branding and more to do with ubiquity. Imax was the first company to be all over the map with gigantic screens. They just took their concept and watered it down to the point where it would fit in just about any complex, then sold the rights to various chains and allowed them to slap that famous logo on it. Imax was just first out of the gate, is all.

Regal or the others will always be playing "catch up" because their PLFs are only in their own locations, not spreak across multiple chains.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-06-2014, 12:00 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
You still view IMAX based on your narrow viewpoint, the general population does not care that there is a difference between 15/70 and digital. The marketing and branding behind IMAX is very sound. It is still is the leader in premium priced movie going experiences.

You're absolutely sure you're not working for the IMAX marketing department? Or is iMax becoming the equivalent of Apple? You know, they get their astroturfing for free.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-06-2014, 01:21 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, don't be silly, you and I know branding and marketing are different but the concepts go together hand in hand. Anyone who believes that a company should create marketing campaigns without the company branding concepts in mind is an idiot. Brand awareness is rarely created/achieved without good marketing.

Specifically what did I write that was "silly" Terry? You got marketing and branding confused with each other in your last post and are now trying to back-pedal out of it. What I wrote regarding IMAX' branding and marketing was absolutely accurate.

Regarding that "idiot" comment, it sounds like you're trying to direct that at someone but are unable to do so yet spouting it anyway because you don't like anyone telling the honest truth about IMAX. I'm all for professional workmanship of advertising materials and a very consistent visual approach, including branding, across all of it. But I absolutely dislike misleading information or lack thereof in marketing and IMAX is guilty of this in its treatment of digital and 15/70 3D theaters and shows.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
You still view IMAX based on your narrow viewpoint, the general population does not care that there is a difference between 15/70 and digital.

I don't have a narrow viewpoint, Terry. I know the truth about 15/70 and digital. That's not being narrow minded at all. You're cheerleading whatever product carries an IMAX label regardless of the details. I can call that blind or ignorant.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-06-2014, 02:00 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I know the truth about 15/70 and digital. That's not being narrow minded at all.

Bobby, you do have a narrow minded viewpoint, I have never said that you don't know the truth, I for one prefer 15/70 over IMAX digital, just like you. But what you refuse to accept is that the general public has accepted digital IMAX. The average moviegoer does not view IMAX the way you are I do.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-06-2014, 02:45 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
But what you refuse to accept is that the general public has accepted digital IMAX. The average moviegoer does not view IMAX the way you are I do.

The average movie-goer doesn't know shit. You try in vain to spin this fact as if average movie-goers have somehow "accepted" IMAX digital when the real fact is they don't know any of the details and differences between various IMAX formats. IMAX is taking advantage of this problem with its misleading advertising tactics.

The only way how the general public could honestly, truthfully be in acceptance of IMAX Digital is if they knew the difference between 15/70mm and 2K digital and then in knowing the difference considered 2K digital an acceptable compromise that was good enough.

Also, what the hell difference does it make to you what I accept or refuse to accept? It sounds like you want me to love 2K IMAX Digital despite all its problems. That just isn't going to happen.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-06-2014, 03:50 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The only way how the general public could honestly, truthfully be in acceptance of IMAX Digital is if they knew the difference between 15/70mm and 2K digital and then in knowing the difference considered 2K digital an acceptable compromise that was good enough.

Terry also thinks that everyone who goes to an Imax Digital movie has "accepted Imax." That means nothing as well. I'd bet at least 75% of the people in any given movie theater (Imax or not) are there not because of some brand name or because "X" theaters are better than the competition, but because that theater was the most convenient one showing the movie they wanted to see at the time they wanted to see it.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-06-2014, 04:19 PM:

The majority of moviegoers are sheep with cellphones and they will line up at the closest cinema as Mike says but we as equipment manufacturers, dealers cinema techs and staff should not stop trying to improve the experience to as close to the state of the art as possible.

The best of the audience will appreciate it and tell others. That's what gets us up in the morning, right?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-06-2014, 04:29 PM:

This...

And let's not forget that many of those sheep may eventually grow up and start to appreciate real quality and dedication.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-06-2014, 05:05 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The only way how the general public could honestly, truthfully be in acceptance of IMAX Digital is if they knew the difference between 15/70mm and 2K digital and then in knowing the difference considered 2K digital an acceptable compromise that was good enough.

Bobby, you have not really been clear on something, you state that the average moviegoers does not know shit. So, for the record in Bobby's opinion, does the the average moviegoer not know the difference? Can't tell the difference? Does the average moviegoer think they know the difference and therefor they accept digital IMAX as superior?

Personally, I don't think the average moviegoer really cares, keep in my mind there have recently been a number of very successful digital only IMAX release films. Gravity was digital only.

If IMAX Digital was so bad, I would assume the average moviegoer would have rejected digital IMAX by now.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-06-2014, 05:39 PM:

Please note that neither Bobby, Mike nor I do claim that Digital IMAX is bad. If it was called DMAX (powered by IMAX) most of us would probably call it a decent big screen experience, but still nothing extraordinary.

But with the legacy of the "old" 15/70 format, Digital IMAX should really have been something else.

For example: If it would be a 8 x 2K projector extravaganza, with perfectly overlapping pictures, I personally wouldn't mind if they would've kept calling this super-digital format just "IMAX". Maybe they would've even be so proud of it that they explicitly stated that it now was digital and actually awesome.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-06-2014, 06:47 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, you have not really been clear on something, you state that the average moviegoers does not know shit. So, for the record in Bobby's opinion, does the the average moviegoer not know the difference?

Terry, you appear hopelessly unable to wrap your brain around this point: the average movie goes DOESN'T KNOW there is any difference. How are they able to make any comparisons if they don't know there are two different things to compare?

Another important point: a bunch of these movie-goers have never really seen a true 15/65mm photographed and 15/70mm presented movie. Real IMAX movies have typically been documentaries shown in museum theaters, which isn't something that draws in the typical movie-goer since they think that kind of stuff is painfully boring. The closest most have been to seeing real 15/70 is from two Batman movies, provided that 1. they saw the movie in one of a limited number of theaters showing a 15/70 print (most IMAX branded theaters showed it in 2K digital) #2. they bothered to notice the quality difference -which I'm willing to bet most viewers didn't notice.

Your notion that the IMAX customer base is all well-informed and thus deliberately accepting of IMAX Digital is a bunch of horseshit.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Please note that neither Bobby, Mike nor I do claim that Digital IMAX is bad.

Actually I am willing to call the current version of IMAX Digital "bad." The 2K resolution sucks. And it sucks on a grand scale when blown up on screens originally meant for 15/70mm material. When IMAX gets around to replacing all those 2K projectors with 4K projectors the product won't be nearly so bad. I have a serious issue with IMAX' sound system, particularly its method of using only two large surround speakers in the rear corners of the room. It's very deficient compared to 7.1 surround found in many standard priced theaters and obsolescent compared to Dolby Atmos.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-06-2014, 07:00 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
When IMAX gets around to replacing all those 2K projectors with 4K projectors the product won't be nearly so bad.

But do you honestly expect them to replace all the current 2K installs out there? Who's going to pay for that? IMAX Corp. themselves? The exhibitor? Or both?

It's not just the projectors or light engine that needs to be replaced, but their "image enhancer" and their servers probably too...

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-06-2014, 07:23 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
the average movie goes DOESN'T KNOW there is any difference.

Then why can't you just move on from it? It must really bother you. The average does not care that they do not know. Are you that much of an idiot?

quote: Bobby Henderson
Your notion that the IMAX customer base is all well-informed

What is wrong with you. I never said that the IMAX customer based is well informed, I have said that the average moviegoer does not care. Bobby, you really are a piece of work.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Actually I am willing to call the current version of IMAX Digital "bad."

Yet you made a repeat visit to an IMAX digital screen after you saw Skyfall and then you wanted to go and see Gravity in IMAX digital after you had already seen it in Atmos.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-06-2014, 07:46 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Then why can't you just move on from it? It must really bother you. The average does not care that they do not know. Are you that much of an idiot?

Not at all, but you're making yourself look like a moron and a shameless troll.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
What is wrong with you. I never said that the IMAX customer based is well informed, I have said that the average moviegoer does not care.

A person walking around with nearly clogged arteries doesn't care about that either until a doctor informs him he has clogged arteries (or he keels over from a heart attack).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-06-2014, 09:44 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
replace all the current 2K installs out there? Who's going to pay for that? IMAX Corp. themselves? The exhibitor? Or both?

Neither. The customers will pay. The customers pay for everything.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-06-2014, 10:05 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
But do you honestly expect them to replace all the current 2K installs out there? Who's going to pay for that? IMAX Corp. themselves? The exhibitor? Or both?

More than half of the IMAX digital set ups are owned by IMAX. The theatre chain and IMAX usually agree to a joint revenue sharing agreement, this allows IMAX to enter the multiplex while minimizing the cost to the chain. So IMAX can upgrade the digital projectors that they currently own.

quote:
t's not just the projectors or light engine that needs to be replaced, but their "image enhancer" and their servers probably too...

I think you are right. The new Barco laser two projector set up is going to be different from the current duo IMAX set up. From what I understand, the Barco will send one very soft image from the left projector and an extremely sharp image from the right projector, when combined the image will look normal to a viewer. The aspect ratio will be the same as the 15/70 image or very close to it.

I fully expect IMAX to differentiate the laser theatres from the xenon theatres (this would be the ultimate slap in face to those who are so offended by the 15/70-digiital controversy). IMAX wants more screens, they are growing in China but not really growing in North America. I could see the xenon set ups moving to a smaller cinema within the complexes that install the new Barco projectors.

IMAX says the new Barco projectors are 8000:1 contrast ratio, film is 4000:1, liemax is 2500:1 (image modified) and standard digital is around 2000:1. IMAX says there will be a difference from what is possible today.

IMAX screens are already doing really well, so what would be the incentive for chains to change projection? Perhaps lower the ticket price for the current IMAX digital and try and try going after the current PLF price point while IMAX Barco goes after the higher end ticket price. My prediction is that IMAX will call the new IMAX Barco screen, IMAX Ultra

Posted by John Roddy (Member # 7348) on 01-06-2014, 10:35 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
My prediction is that IMAX will call the new IMAX Barco screen, IMAX Ultra

My money's on IMAXMAX.

The plan for the final rollout of the system is what I'm more interested in. I've only heard of one venue so far that's confirmed to be switching to it. No clue what's to be said for the rest out there. It should be on the market very very soon though. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-06-2014, 11:07 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I fully expect IMAX to differentiate the laser theatres from the xenon theatres (this would be the ultimate slap in face to those who are so offended by the 15/70-digiital controversy).

You're dreaming. The way IMAX has conducted the misleading advertising with its 2K digital process, and factoring in some new developments with HDTV sets, IMAX is kind of painted into the proverbial corner. They're not going to be able to call out differences with their current system and the upcoming 4K system without creating some problems for themselves.

If IMAX is smart they'll work hard to replace every IMAX-branded 2K setup with 4K ASAP and then just keep calling it "IMAX".

If they try making public distinctions between the 2K and 4K systems then customers will start asking questions and they won't like the answers. IMAX will have to come out and say the old system was 2K and the new system 4K. Some people might say, "my new HDTV set at home is 4K, I thought IMAX was supposed to be a lot better than that." Details about the 15/70mm format might become more visible to those average movie-goers. And then there's the issue about so many 3D movies being rendered in 2K only. IMAX' jump to 4K may only be good for 2D movies and worthless for 3D movies unless Hollywood studios start pumping out 4K 3D movies.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I could see the xenon set ups moving to a smaller cinema within the complexes that install the new Barco projectors.

Wishful thinking. A dual projector setup is a good idea for a really large screen, but it's a waste of electricity for more modest sized screens. IMAX' current xenon-based projectors are stuck with that limited 2K resolution. Quite a few theaters are lighting up standard sized screens with single projectors and 4K resolution just fine. Theater operators don't need any IMAX-related revenue sharing garbage coasting into an auditorium IMAX didn't help pay to build.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-06-2014, 11:08 PM:

@John, I believe there are currently 20 theaters that have signed up to install the next gen projectors once they become available. The IMAX Australia location already states on their website that the new projection system will replace the 15/70 GT unit. The chinese company Wanda announced 80 new IMAX screens will be installed and many of them will be next generation laser. IMAX also commented in an article somewhere that they expect non IMAX locations to change their lighting to laser by swapping out their old xenons, so I guess it is possible for the current IMAX units to be switched out. Now if I could just find that article [Frown]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-07-2014, 06:30 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
IMAX says the new Barco projectors are 8000:1 contrast ratio, film is 4000:1, liemax is 2500:1 (image modified) and standard digital is around 2000:1. IMAX says there will be a difference from what is possible today.

Hold on there speedy...those are bogus contrast ratio number and I don't care who supplied them. Digital likes to use full-on/full-off numbers...bogus. Put up a 50% cheakerboard and measure the black verus white squares...so how good your numbers are now. I'll wager, even with "lasers" they won't be 1000:1.

First off, with the best of film in the best of theatres (Motion Picture Academy) are you aren't going to get past 1000:1 In typical cinemas it is going to top out at about 750:1 (and likely closer to 400:1) before the fire marshal will ruin it.

Any contrast ratio that doesn't have white and black content playing at the same time is just marketing BS.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-07-2014, 11:46 AM:

IMAX's marketing efforts create some demand, and the fact that the primary auditorium in many theaters is going to be the IMAX theater (and/or a PLF theater) tends to automatically funnel moviegoers in that direction.

Some people are going for the "IMAX Experience" while others are going because that's where it's playing. If you want to see Wolf of Wall Street at the AMC Empire 25, you have to go to their ETX screen and pay the upcharge. If you want to see Desolation of Smaug in 3D, you have it at 11:20AM, 3:00PM, 6:40PM, and 10:30PM in the IMAX or 2:00PM and 9:10PM in the non-IMAX 3D screen. If you want to see the movie tonight after work, which are you going to choose? In dense areas like NYC, there are other options very close by, but in less dense areas, such choices do not abound.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
So, for the record in Bobby's opinion, does the the average moviegoer not know the difference? Can't tell the difference? Does the average moviegoer think they know the difference and therefor they accept digital IMAX as superior?

Personally, I don't think the average moviegoer really cares, keep in my mind there have recently been a number of very successful digital only IMAX release films. Gravity was digital only.

If IMAX Digital was so bad, I would assume the average moviegoer would have rejected digital IMAX by now.

I don't think IMAX is bad enough to make the average moviegoer take notice, and then take action. McDonalds doesn't succeed on the best quality food and the best possible dining experience, does it? It relies on its marketing, its brand, and its consistency in (its level of) quality to succeed. Sound familiar?

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
From what I understand, the Barco will send one very soft image from the left projector and an extremely sharp image from the right projector, when combined the image will look normal to a viewer.

I've not looked into any of the technical documents, but this doesn't make any sense to me. Sharp on top of blur is blur. If you could point me to some publicly available documents, I would be interested in understanding how they're doing that.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I fully expect IMAX to differentiate the laser theatres from the xenon theatres (this would be the ultimate slap in face to those who are so offended by the 15/70-digiital controversy).

I fully expect them to not differentiate them. There's no evidence to support the belief that they will, based on their past actions. It would not be in their best interest. If McDonald's started using higher-quality beef in some of their restaurants, they certainly would not advertise those restaurants, because the natural result of that marketing would be that traffic would be driven away from the "other" restaurants. McD's thrives on people knowing what they're going to get when they walk into any McD's location and delivering that consistency to uphold that brand-wide reputation.

I would like to see IMAX do a full-scale swap of all their dual-2K installations with the new setups, but I doubt that will happen.

If they did do a complete and immediate equipment swap, it would be an excellent marketing opportunity to leapfrog the various PLF efforts out there. Doing so would elevate the entire brand, allow them a chance to crow about what they are doing, and steal the thunder away from anyone trying to compete with them with less capability. It would put IMAX back on the top of the performance hill, and while they aren't putting out the best in everything, they would be better than any other effort out there due to their consistency in the midst of a very fractured marketplace.

That said, my guess is that it will take two years or more to complete the swap, and there will be no indication as to the equipment at each location.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-07-2014, 01:19 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Digital likes to use full-on/full-off numbers...bogus. Put up a 50% cheakerboard and measure the black verus white squares...so how good your numbers are now. I'll wager, even with "lasers" they won't be 1000:1.

The cooked contrast ratio numbers are especially funny when one considers how digital projection can't show blacks nearly as deep as that of film. Laser-based projection might outperform xenon, but that digital imaging chip and the bit depth of the video content being fed into it are important variables.

This stuff reminds me of the marketing I see all the time with LED-based electronic variable message centers (or "jumbotrons" to use a more simple term). Product sheets make claims of displays showing 68 billion colors. I've seen some message center ads claiming supported colors in the trillions or quadrillions. Yet none of the message composition applications will allow anything more than a 16.7 million color still image. JPEG uses chroma subsampling as part of its lossy compression process. Any video files fed into the software will be severely bit-reduced as well. The only area where that expanded color palette could come into play for any advantage at all is minute color adjustments for individual driver board tiles to make the display look more uniform as new driver boards are installed to replace faulty boards.

quote: Scott Jentsch
IMAX's marketing efforts create some demand, and the fact that the primary auditorium in many theaters is going to be the IMAX theater (and/or a PLF theater) tends to automatically funnel moviegoers in that direction.

Some people are going for the "IMAX Experience" while others are going because that's where it's playing. If you want to see Wolf of Wall Street at the AMC Empire 25, you have to go to their ETX screen and pay the upcharge. If you want to see Desolation of Smaug in 3D, you have it at 11:20AM, 3:00PM, 6:40PM, and 10:30PM in the IMAX or 2:00PM and 9:10PM in the non-IMAX 3D screen. If you want to see the movie tonight after work, which are you going to choose? In dense areas like NYC, there are other options very close by, but in less dense areas, such choices do not abound.

This is a point I tried, repeatedly, to make. Others have tried too. Terry and other LieMAX defenders refuse to acknowledge any of it.

quote: Scott Jentsch
I would like to see IMAX do a full-scale swap of all their dual-2K installations with the new setups, but I doubt that will happen.

It would be impossible for IMAX to replace between 300 and 350 dual 2K digital projection setups in the United States all at once. But they need to get those systems replaced as quickly as they can properly manage once the 4K systems are ready to install. IMHO, they need to target specific markets/regions, replacing all 2K systems in that area. That would reduce chances of one theater getting 4K and another within driving distance being stuck with 2K for months on end. IMAX should start out in some smaller markets with only 1 or 2 IMAX branded screens to handle. They can work out any bugs, installation hassles, etc. As the installations become more routine the technicians will be able to tackle the bigger markets with several IMAX branded screens more efficiently.

quote: Scott Jentsch
If they did do a complete and immediate equipment swap, it would be an excellent marketing opportunity to leapfrog the various PLF efforts out there. Doing so would elevate the entire brand, allow them a chance to crow about what they are doing, and steal the thunder away from anyone trying to compete with them with less capability.

The problem is IMAX can't really do that without angering many of its own customers. Regal has 80 IMAX-branded screens, but also has 62 of those RPX screens. IMAX could pick on some premium priced big screens operated by theaters who don't have any IMAX branded screens, but those theater operators could fire back their own shots at IMAX or other rival premium screen concepts. The situation could deteriorate into a technical comparison contest (which I wouldn't mind at all), but that would make more of the public aware of shortcomings in many of these theaters and that would be bad for IMAX and its theater chain partners.

At best, I could see IMAX crowing about its laser projection system in movie trailers and on its web site, but without taking pot shots at its rivals. They may have to lay off the "4K" thing for awhile since none of the 3D movies coming out of Hollywood are being rendered in 4K. Perhaps this is an issue holding up a roll-out of these 4K laser projectors. AFAIK the folks in charge of digital cinema standards haven't finalized anything yet regarding 4K 3D.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-07-2014, 03:28 PM:

What is it with IMAX and lasers? Will their laser projection be as good as their laser-aligned sound systems? Because their sound systems are the worst anywhere.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-07-2014, 05:57 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The cooked contrast ratio numbers are especially funny when one considers how digital projection can't show blacks nearly as deep as that of film. Laser-based projection might outperform xenon, but that digital imaging chip and the bit depth of the video content being fed into it are important variables.

Even with all the mirrors in the off-position, DLP DMDs are still leaking a considerable amount of light onto the screen, even though the mirrors of practically all recent DLP DMDs been coated with some black substrate. A cinema DLP projector has three of those, so there is considerable more leakage than in a single-DMD device. This is not really a bit-depth problem, but rather an optical/mechanical problem.

I've read that laser light sources will improve in this regard, but I haven't heard a reasonable explanation why this would actually happen.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-07-2014, 07:43 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
I've not looked into any of the technical documents, but this doesn't make any sense to me. Sharp on top of blur is blur. If you could point me to some publicly available documents, I would be interested in understanding how they're doing that.

You have some interesting points of view about IMAX in your comments, but here is a link of the information, I was actually wrong to say blurred image, I should of said an image that looks low res from one projector and a high detailed image from the other. Together, they look good.

IMAX Continues to Hype Laser Projection as Future of Movie Theaters

quote: Scott Jentsch
I fully expect them to not differentiate them. There's no evidence to support the belief that they will, based on their past actions. It would not be in their best interest.

IMAX is in the business of selling the laser projectors when they are finally available. I would assume IMAX will want to grow screen counts in North America. I would expect two IMAX screens in some multiplexes going forward, IMAX Ultra charging $20 a ticket for laser projection on the largest screens and IMAX Digtial charging $15 a ticket on the smaller screens. Likely 15/70 will be completely phased out by the time laser really picks up.

quote: Scott Jentsch
I would like to see IMAX do a full-scale swap of all their dual-2K installations with the new setups, but I doubt that will happen.

I don't think this is going to happen, I can see two IMAX products/concepts at select theatres. Or we could see the current IMAX projectors upgraded to 4K but keep the Xenon. Nevertheless, if IMAX was to continue to grow, they will only do it by increasing screen counts thus allowing more product to be shown in IMAX.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I've read that laser light sources will improve in this regard, but I haven't heard a reasonable explanation why this would actually happen.

My hunch tells me that IMAX laser projector that is licensed from Kodak will be an RGB laser projector. All others will be white light laser projectors. What IMAX will be doing will be completely exclusive compared to the other laser projectors.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-08-2014, 04:27 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
You have some interesting points of view about IMAX in your comments, but here is a link of the information, I was actually wrong to say blurred image, I should of said an image that looks low res from one projector and a high detailed image from the other. Together, they look good.

To me this sounds like a technique to hide the pixel grid artifacts, which might become more of an issue in higher contrast situations. Even if they're going 4K, this is still barely sufficient for many of those huge 15/70 screens out there, so they probably need something to "blur" the otherwise evident pixel grid.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
My hunch tells me that IMAX laser projector that is licensed from Kodak will be an RGB laser projector. All others will be white light laser projectors. What IMAX will be doing will be completely exclusive compared to the other laser projectors.

That sounds more like an answer from a car salesman. Most people around here are sufficient tech-savvy to comprehend the basic concepts behind the technology being used here.

Distinctive RGB light sources aren't really something new, many low-end single-DMD DLP projectors using LED as light source already use three distinct light sources, to avoid the color wheel.

In a previous discussion regarding Laser Light Sources, Carsten Kurz gave a very insightful answer regarding the speckle problem of laser light sources and how a laser upgrade could eventually work for existing projectors that use a set of prisms to split and combine the light:

quote:
Most LIPs use multiple laser sources (some hundreds) as a first measure to reduce speckle. As far as I know, the better ones use multiple methods to reduce it.
http://lipainfo.org/wp-content/uploads/Greg-Niven_Projection-Summit-2012.pdf
To my knowledge, the Barco retrofit option actually attaches to the light pipe, it sends all three colours through it, simulating a white light source like the Xenon bulb. This could be improved technically, but is probably not possible without replacing/deconstructing the whole light engine. You do not get to the individual RGB paths without that, and then the retrofit idea is no longer there.
As a side effect of this simple retrofit idea, there is little improvement in overall picture quality - especially On/Off contrast remains as low as before.
Kodak used a dedicated laser based design, which among other things achieved higher contrast using DLP imagers. Wether IMAX goes the Kodak way, or follows the Barco retrofit strategy, or a mix of both, who knows?

But even with a split light-path solution, those DLP chips are still leaking light and I'm not really getting how this will improve the "blackness" in a full-off situation.

quote: Joe Redifer
What is it with IMAX and lasers? Will their laser projection be as good as their laser-aligned sound systems? Because their sound systems are the worst anywhere.

Rumor has it, their next generation sound system will use lasers to create the actual sound. Whether or not it includes sharks is as of yet a trade secret.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-08-2014, 09:35 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
IMAX is in the business of selling the laser projectors when they are finally available. I would assume IMAX will want to grow screen counts in North America. I would expect two IMAX screens in some multiplexes going forward, IMAX Ultra charging $20 a ticket for laser projection on the largest screens and IMAX Digtial charging $15 a ticket on the smaller screens. Likely 15/70 will be completely phased out by the time laser really picks up.

Keep dreaming.

Regarding this "selling the laser projectors" thing, I thought IMAX had to foot the bill for those things as part of their revenue sharing agreement. The theater operator paid for the building and is paying for all the overhead while kicking back a considerable share of the box office take to IMAX. If theater operators are suddenly told they'll have to buy the dual 4K laser projectors in order to upgrade very few of those theater operators will do so. If the theater operators have to foot a big projector upgrade bill some may remove all the IMAX-branded stuff and convert the theater into their own private label big screen concept instead.

Having two pricing tiers for different versions of IMAX digital would piss off a lot of customers. Customers understand pricing differences between 2D and 3D, but they would have a much harder time understanding the differences between regular and laser based systems. They would want to know specifics. If they understood the specifics they wouldn't be very impressed with them. Advertising "IMAX" and "IMAX Ultra" in the same theater or even the same market would be a stupid, self destructive idea.

quote: Joe Redifer
What is it with IMAX and lasers? Will their laser projection be as good as their laser-aligned sound systems? Because their sound systems are the worst anywhere.

To me, IMAX theater audio has a very similar character to that of a professional basketball/hockey arena that also hosts rock concerts. It also reminds me of loud & harsh car stereo systems. I can't stand IMAX' approach to surround sound. The sound is only 5.1 (or perhaps only 5.0). That might have been just fine several years ago, but it's now pretty old fashioned considering so many standard priced theaters support 7.1 surround. Dolby Atmos and Auro 11.1 can be found in competing premium priced theaters making IMAX' laser aligned sound system seem even more obsolete.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Rumor has it, their next generation sound system will use lasers to create the actual sound. Whether or not it includes sharks is as of yet a trade secret.

It will probably still involve only two enclosures mounted in the rear corners of the room.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-08-2014, 09:59 AM:

Unfortunately, that article on FirstShowing.net is a summary of the article on TechRadar.com, both of which provide little actual information. The original article is basically an interview with the CTO of IMAX trying to explain why IMAX will be relevant in the world of 4K, so hold on tight everyone, we'll have something real soon now.

I don't expect either article to provide technical details, but the only mention of what they are doing sounds like something that someone would spout at a booth a trade show:

quote:
"So we're working on a new technology called hyper-projection which, in the the lay sense, you present what appears to be a low resolution image (it's not) from one projector and a high detailed image which is very sharp from the other projector - neither picture on its own is particularly attractive but when they get superimposed your brain melds the two images and create this pristine image which eliminates all of the artefacts."

The contrast numbers are bogus as well. Maybe the medium is capable of those contrast numbers. Maybe the equipment is capable of those numbers in a blacked-out room. Conveniently, it's not mentioned if those are dynamic contrast, full on/off, ANSI checkerboard, or just how it's measured. The TV industry has shown that such numbers should be considered cooked unless proven otherwise.

Have any of these people walked into a mainstream movie theater while a movie is playing? With the projector off, I could read by the amount of light in the auditorium, and with the amount of light hitting the (often highly reflective-for-3D) screen from sconces, stair lights, exit lights, etc., the screen starts out a dull grey to begin with, much less what the projector is going to be capable of.

I also don't agree with their contention that "nobody is creating 4K content currently" -- what should we call every movie made with film cameras and without going to a 2K intermediate during processing? The 4K bandwagon has arrived and it's on parade. No wonder the guy says he doesn't sleep much at night...

quote: Bobby Henderson
IMHO, they need to target specific markets/regions, replacing all 2K systems in that area. That would reduce chances of one theater getting 4K and another within driving distance being stuck with 2K for months on end.

This makes a lot of sense. It would be the best way to keep their theaters consistent in the public's perception.

quote: Bobby Henderson
The problem is IMAX can't really do that without angering many of its own customers. Regal has 80 IMAX-branded screens, but also has 62 of those RPX screens. IMAX could pick on some premium priced big screens operated by theaters who don't have any IMAX branded screens, but those theater operators could fire back their own shots at IMAX or other rival premium screen concepts.

The chains asked for that problem the moment they agreed to put IMAX theaters in their locations, and then again when they created their PLF competitors to IMAX. I'm sure that the companies involved have some sort of stipulations that prevent aggressive marketing that would paint the other in a negative light, but IMAX has always positioned itself as the impressive, high performance option for seeing a movie, so they could take a passive approach that would build themselves up while passively creating a comparison to the competing PLF's that would have IMAX coming out on top.

IMAX is struggling for its very life. If they can't compete successfully with the PLF's, they don't have a company. There aren't enough non-Regal/AMC/Carmike/Cinemark/Harkins/Santikos/Marcus/etc. locations out there to keep from stepping on those exhibitors' toes in some way and still succeed.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-08-2014, 10:12 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Even if they're going 4K, this is still barely sufficient for many of those huge 15/70 screens out there, so they probably need something to "blur" the otherwise evident pixel grid.

North Americas largest screens should of at least kept their 15/70 units installed side-by-side with their digital projectors at the true purpose built multiplex facilities, I don't really care about the MPX conversion theatres. We have seven true purpose built locations that were built inside a multiplex, they are no different in design than any other GT 15/70 location.

IMAX Melbourne does both digital and 15/70 presentations. For the Hobbit, they even played the digital version in HFR and the 15/70 on the same day. They do differentiate the presentations. I would love to see their box office receipts for the difference in attendance. Both the Australian IMAX venues have both digital and film and their movie selection is far greater than it ever was previously.

quote: Scott Jentsch
IMAX is struggling for its very life.

How did you jump to this conclusion? IMAX has had record growth, sales and profits for the last few years. The studio content and digital conversion has allowed IMAX to survive. There are no purpose built 15/70 theatres built-outs anymore and some of the existing theatres that are running 15/70 are closing up shop. There is no future for 15/70.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-08-2014, 01:23 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
I also don't agree with their contention that "nobody is creating 4K content currently" -- what should we call every movie made with film cameras and without going to a 2K intermediate during processing? The 4K bandwagon has arrived and it's on parade. No wonder the guy says he doesn't sleep much at night...

We would be seeing a lot more in the way of movies using 4K digital intermediates, CGI, etc. and outputting 4K movie files if not for the whole 3D thing. Still, even with 2D-only movies 4K use is not very common yet. Some studios, like Sony, are doing more to support 4K. Over the next couple years we'll see a lot more 4K origination due to the arrival of 4K TV sets, 4K computer screens, YouTube allowing 4K uploads and streams -not to mention many current generation 2K d-cinema projectors getting a bit "long in the tooth" so to speak.

quote: Scott Jentsch
The chains asked for that problem the moment they agreed to put IMAX theaters in their locations, and then again when they created their PLF competitors to IMAX.

This is more of IMAX' problem than that of the theater chains. Companies like Regal have the luxury of playing the situation both ways.

quote: Scott Jentsch
I'm sure that the companies involved have some sort of stipulations that prevent aggressive marketing that would paint the other in a negative light, but IMAX has always positioned itself as the impressive, high performance option for seeing a movie, so they could take a passive approach that would build themselves up while passively creating a comparison to the competing PLF's that would have IMAX coming out on top.

The problem, particularly with digital technology, they can't make any sort of comparisons, direct or implied, without going into specifics. The specifics will get them in trouble because they won't clearly come out on top in terms of projection and will look inferior in terms of sound.

As long as IMAX makes some effort to improve its product the theater chains will keep those IMAX branded theaters in their multiplex sites. I'm sure many of IMAX' current theater chain customers are very curious about those 4K laser projectors. I'm sure some of them are asking about the sound system and what will be done to modernize it. If IMAX doesn't do enough to improve, or does things to sour relations with its theater chain partners (like making the theaters foot the bill for future projection & sound improvements) then we'll see a bunch of IMAX digital theaters get converted into something else.

Movie chains can compete directly with IMAX Digital by way of their own premium concepts. They'll have to spend quite a lot of money to deliver a truly superior product. Without IMAX or any theater chains offering much in the way of specifics it's possible for theater chains cut corners and merely act like they're delivering something equal to IMAX Digital. I just wish the specific truths could be hashed out about all these premium priced concepts.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-08-2014, 05:14 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
I also don't agree with their contention that "nobody is creating 4K content currently" -- what should we call every movie made with film cameras and without going to a 2K intermediate during processing? The 4K bandwagon has arrived and it's on parade. No wonder the guy says he doesn't sleep much at night...

Instead of pushing superior OLED screens, flat panel producers decided that they could get more out of their investment in TFT technology by just upping the resolution. Although 4K TFT screens are still prohibitively expensive for most applications, the prices will come down.

Studios are just waiting to resell us our inventory yet again in a newer, better format: Newly scanned prints, digital restorations and up-conversions... Also, 4K will surely become the gold standard for mainstream releases within the foreseeable future. So 4K is definitely getting very relevant.

quote: Bobby Henderson
It will probably still involve only two enclosures mounted in the rear corners of the room.

Who doesn't want a set of laser aligned shark tanks in the rear corner of his room?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-09-2014, 12:25 AM:

So... since a single iPad has more resolution than IMAX, why doesn't IMAX just build a video wall out of iPads? They could all be plugged in behind the screen. It would probably draw even less power than the projectors and the sound (coming from the iPad speakers) would be about 1000% better than the regular IMAX sound. No joke, not kidding. There would be no jaggies in the image at all and it would blow away the resolution of IMAX film as well. Maybe not in visual dynamic range but it'd be close.

Cheaper AND better. Hopefully IMAX soon becomes iMAX.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-09-2014, 01:12 AM:

I'm rooting for IMAX to become XAMIMAX. A palindrome. Just like Bob. That would make it better. Yes.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-09-2014, 08:09 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
So... since a single iPad has more resolution than IMAX, why doesn't IMAX just build a video wall out of iPads? They could all be plugged in behind the screen. It would probably draw even less power than the projectors and the sound (coming from the iPad speakers) would be about 1000% better than the regular IMAX sound. No joke, not kidding. There would be no jaggies in the image at all and it would blow away the resolution of IMAX film as well. Maybe not in visual dynamic range but it'd be close.

At least their "flat" screens would be more like their dome screens, you know, with those ugly seams were the aluminum sheets meet. [Wink]

But this reminds me of the LG stand on ISE (Amsterdam) last year, they had a HUGE video wall, built with ordinary flat panel TVs. They were showcasing some 3D content which was supposed to be in front of those panels, using very high resolution content. The problem was though, that the bevels between the screens totally destroyed the 3D effect. It just looked stupid, why didn't anybody think about this kind of obvious shit?

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-09-2014, 11:21 AM:

quote:
quote: Scott Jentsch "IMAX is struggling for its very life. "

How did you jump to this conclusion? IMAX has had record growth, sales and profits for the last few years. The studio content and digital conversion has allowed IMAX to survive. There are no purpose built 15/70 theatres built-outs anymore and some of the existing theatres that are running 15/70 are closing up shop. There is no future for 15/70.

Perhaps "struggling" might not be the perfect choice of wording, but I don't think it's far off the mark.

Think about it from a fresh perspective. Imagine having to go on Shark Tank with the idea of getting investment in a company called "IMAX".

Your primary product is offered in movie theaters, many with direct competition to your primary product.

The thing you hang your hat on is the size of the screen, but those other screens are as big or bigger.

You have big sound, they have big sound and potentially bigger. Dolby Atmos and Auro 11.1 sweeten the pot, and you have no answer to them.

You have a brand name that has been around for many years with lots of marketing to support it. They have big brand names (Regal, AMC, Cinemark, etc.) with long histories as well, and they can market their PLF in every single screen they have in each location, as well as direct E-Mail campaigns, etc.

You have nothing proprietary at this time that your competitors cannot offer. The movies are the same (aside from the very few that do the aspect-ratio dance), the projection and sound equipment can be matched or exceeded by your competitors.

Technology-wise, you risk falling behind those competitors, and have a very short window of opportunity before you are overtaken completely. You need hundreds of millions of dollars to finish development on the new projectors and then replace your existing equipment, all in 9-18 months.

Would the sharks bite at your offer, or would they be out?

If that window is missed, or if the chains become even more aggressive in their PLF efforts, you face a dwindling business in a finite market. There is the international market, sure, but that's a David Hasselhof move with limited potential.

If I were opening a new theater and had the choice of an IMAX screen or rolling my own PLF, IMAX would have to make a very compelling case as to why they would be the best route to go. Unless they're fronting an incredible amount of the build-out and equipment costs, I don't see where going the IMAX route and giving them a split of the revenue ad infinitum makes sense.

That's why I said "struggling" and perhaps why the guy isn't sleeping at night.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-09-2014, 12:07 PM:

All great points Scott!

IMAX is still an iconic brand for its past, but the mystique of the brand often lingers on for some years after the reality of their contribution, as in the example of THX.

IMAX reputation was earned because it produced its own alternative content; often awesome material.

IMO, they are treading water and playing for time until they have something new with which to dazzle us.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-09-2014, 12:59 PM:

Fundamentally, IMAX needs to be able to do something theater chains can't replicate (or even surpass) with their own house brand premium screens. They were able to do that with film. They're not able to do that with digital technology.

Laser projection technology looked like it might be a big trump card for IMAX, but with several other companies working on their own laser-based designs IMAX may end up not having any advantage there at all. IMAX missed the boat in terms of next generation "immersive" sound formats.

The term "4K" isn't going to help IMAX or other theater operators very much since it is moving into the home theater space. At Winter CES Visio announced a 50" 4K TV for under $1000. A Samsung executive got the rumor mill buzzing about a new breed of Blu-ray players able to play 4K content on quad layer discs coming perhaps as early as the end of 2014. If anything, the growth of 4K in home theater will force many 2K equipped commercial theaters to upgrade their equipment.

In the end, IMAX can only play around with the terms of its revenue sharing agreements with movie theater chains. They have to continue making their deals with theaters look very attractive. There is a danger theater chains like AMC or Regal could start playing hardball with IMAX and demand better terms to improve their own profit margins. Or the chains could do what they did with THX, getting rid of IMAX completely if they felt it had become irrelevant.

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 01-09-2014, 01:04 PM:

People on both sides of this discussion have been making good points, but please, I hope that's the last time we ever use "Shark Tank" to make a point. Business decisions with all the long term attention span of a canary. Henry Ford would never have survived "Shark Tank".

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-09-2014, 01:29 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The term "4K" isn't going to help IMAX or other theater operators very much since it is moving into the home theater space.

True. I wish the movie business would embrace and promote the most important thing that differentiates us from the living room: "SIZE." The size of everything, not just the picture but the sound as well. The impact just is not there at home -- well it can be, sort of, if you have a really big screen in a really good home theater setup, but 99% of people don't have that and never will. Even the smallest theater screen is FAR bigger than the biggest home TV screens, and if a good sound system is added, a movie in a theater will have a greater emotional impact than a TV setup ever would.

This is what the industry needs to promote.....not an alphabet soup of letters and snazzy names that mean nothing to most people.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-09-2014, 02:11 PM:

Commercial theaters have to deliver the goods on showmanship. Some theaters are good at doing this. Too many others make the experience no more remarkable than a visit to a fast food restaurant.

Home theater can be only so good, but the quality bar has been rising higher and higher. It's also amazing how big/good a TV one can buy for $1000 or $2000. 15-20 years ago you couldn't buy a halfway decent big screen 4:3 SDTV for that kind of money. This year's Winter CES show in Las Vegas has showcased a variety of new 4K TV sets (and an 8K set from Sharp). Some of the 4K TVs had OLED-based curved screens. Sizes are growing too. Several of the 4K models were over 6' diagonally. One hit the 10' mark. I don't think I could put one of those TV sets on my living room wall without the speaker towers getting in the way.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 01-09-2014, 02:53 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Instead of pushing superior OLED screens, flat panel producers decided that they could get more out of their investment in TFT technology by just upping the resolution. Although 4K TFT screens are still prohibitively expensive for most applications, the prices will come down.

Large OLED screens still have a lot of manufacturing/yield issues to overcome. That's why the focus is on trying to sell useless 4k TFT screens for higher profit margins since nobody was willing to pay extra for 3D.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-09-2014, 03:08 PM:

Apparently manufacturers have overcome some of those hurdles with OLED. The new OLED-based 4K TV sets coming from Samsung, LG, etc. aren't going to be cheap at all. But prices will come down as the scale of OLED manufacturing grows and matures.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-09-2014, 03:34 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
Perhaps "struggling" might not be the perfect choice of wording, but I don't think it's far off the mark.

Do you not think that IMAX recognizes that the PLF expansion is a concern to IMAX?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-09-2014, 04:18 PM:

Maybe "struggling" is too strong a word, but they'd be crazy not to be worried or at the least, "very concerned." Just give it a thought....if you were CEO of a cinema chain, and it was going to cost you $100,000 a year (I'm just guessing here, it could be more or less) in licensing fees to put the name "Imax" on your building, but you could take that money and buy the exact same or better equipment, and the only catch was you would have to develop your own "XD" type logo to put on it....that would be a no brainer. With all these other chains coming up with their own PLF "concepts" it's probably a foregone conclusion that Imax's piece of the overall pie will get smaller in the future. They will probably be the THX of the 2010s before it's all over.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-10-2014, 08:49 PM:

If Dolby is going to have any chance at becoming relevant again, they are going to have to come up with some better marketing materials for theatre owners that this POS. [puke]

Those who were watching Lone Survivor today got a treat, apparently they got to hear the movie in Dolby Atmos. There was a trailer for Dolby Atmos before the feature. Fantastic quality control [Frown]

As a chain that has a number of PLF screens, Cineplex has starting market against IMAX head-on. Cineplex has debuted a new slogan of "Don't just see the movie, feel it" Well how freaking original is that?

I guess AVX sucks because the woman in the pic is watching the movie by herself. Someone needs to tell Cineplex that they need to fill the other seats up to make the advertisement look good. It looks like an in-house marketing team put this ad together.

Anyways, here is an IMAX retrofit pic taking from the same complex.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-10-2014, 11:50 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
the woman in the pic is watching the movie by herself. Someone needs to tell Cineplex that they need to fill the other seats up to make the advertisement look good. It looks like an in-house marketing team put this ad together.

Without being able to see the whole spot, it's pointless to even speculate about it. There is probably a very good reason she's by herself.

As for that bottom picture, wow that looks ... well, like a movie screen stuffed into a shoebox. How many seats in that house? How big is the screen?

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-11-2014, 12:21 AM:

How many seats do you think it seats? I would be interested in knowing how many you think it seats.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-11-2014, 01:16 AM:

I suspect Tom Petrov has been boozing it up.
[Razz]

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
If Dolby is going to have any chance at becoming relevant again, they are going to have to come up with some better marketing materials for theatre owners that this POS.

Actually that looks like some theater chain in house marketing departement shit, not something from Dolby.

I'll break it down into some specifics. First of all when the hell was the color orange ever, I mean ever, a part of Dolby's marketing scheme? They're big on using red, black & silver/grey on a bunch of their cinema processors. But just about all their marketing stuff as of late has been shades of black and blue.

Next: the type on that oval thing is all wrong. The "Dolby Atmos" part looks correct, but hell you can grab an .SVG of that from Wikipedia. The dead giveaway is the "Hear It In" part set in Futura and the "Sound Revolutionized" thing set in Eurostile. Wrong. If this piece of advertising work had really come directly from Dolby all of the type would have been set in Morgan Sans. Whoever put together that oval ad obviously didn't have that particular type family on hand (and probably didn't want to pay $300+ to buy it either).

Terry, if you're going to criticize advertising materials at least know what you're talking about before you start laying blame on anyone.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Those who were watching Lone Survivor today got a treat, apparently they got to hear the movie in Dolby Atmos. There was a trailer for Dolby Atmos before the feature. Fantastic quality control

Maybe you need to take that up with the dipshit theater manager who can't get his trailers straight instead of stupidly blaming that on Dolby. But you probably already know this, troll.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I guess AVX sucks because the woman in the pic is watching the movie by herself.

Another loaded, highly spun comment. Empty auditoriums are caused by other more important factors than some contest between premium priced auditorium concepts. Those factors include: the movie is shitty, the movie has been in the theater too long or the person visiting the auditorium went there at some odd-ball hour, which might make perfect sense for a troll.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-11-2014, 01:29 AM:

Bobby, no need to get all worked up, its just Dolby [Wink]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-11-2014, 01:34 AM:

I'm not worked up at all. I'm just calling you on your bullshit.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-11-2014, 01:45 AM:

Bobby, you are worked up. You even called me someone who I am not. Would you like me to start calling you Bobbie? At least I have the respect to call you by your fucking name. Then you call me a troll, would you like me to make fun of you?

As for Dolby, they share some blame for theatre owners giving out the wrong messages. IMAX has a big one up on Dolby in that they monitor the theatres "real time" apparentl, I don't know how much truth there is in that but I have told you before, that is for you to decide. I have yet to see a theatre in my area use IMAX in the incorrect way.

Dolby better get their act together and perhaps start educating their installs in what the difference is between 7.1 and Atmos, the average person likely can't tell the difference . This is why I firmly predict that Dolby Ass-mos will be just like 7.1 in a few years and that is irrelevant.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-11-2014, 02:06 AM:

I'm relaxed. I believe it is you who are worked up and angry at this late hour of the night. Which one of us resorted to sending some nasty hate e-mails to the other? That would be you. I think getting worked up is more your style than mine.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
As for Dolby, they share some blame for theatre owners giving out the wrong messages.

No they don't. Honestly, it takes a pretty dense movie theater manager or whoever it is putting together the playlist not to know better when he should or should not run a Dolby Atmos trailer. This is no different than someone running a 35mm Dolby Digital trailer on a 35mm movie with only a SDDS digital track.

Since Dolby's personnel cannot be there to babysit the monkey children working in the theaters you visit I just don't see how it is Dolby's fault at all. Dolby's employees have no control over what theater employees throw into a d-cinema playlist. The notion that you don't understand this really puts your level of intelligence into question.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I have yet to see a theatre in my area use IMAX in the incorrect way.

Correct way? No curtains or masking on the screen and a basketball arena approach to surround sound. And for a really high price. I'll at least give them a couple points for being consistent about it.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Dolby better get their act together and perhaps start educating their installs in what the difference is between 7.1 and Atmos, the average person likely can't tell the difference . This is why I firmly predict that Dolby Ass-mos will be just like 7.1 in a few years and that is irrelevant.

Is that a backward way in trying to defend IMAX' old 5.0/5.1 approach to sound in a high priced auditorium?

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-11-2014, 02:13 AM:

Bobby, I'm not defending the IMAX layout at all, dig into the Gravity thread, I even said that the Ass-mos presentation was better. The average person is not going to be able to tell that there is that much of a difference.

Where I have serious concerns is in the marketing department. I think it sucks, the trailers are not very good. Dolby is a little late to the game. The Dolby 7.1 flop kind of shows that the general audience does not care. I do like how they named Dolby Atmos something other than XX.1 or surround, I will give them credit for that.

Dolby could prevent their trailers from running on the wrong movie with KDM locks. Could they not?

IMAX suuround sound layout and lack of masking has been like that since the 70's, did you not know that?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-11-2014, 02:45 AM:

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Dolby has some huge cardboard marketing displays available. They show a cinema seat standing in the middle of some nature scene.

And what's so wrong with the Atmos Amaze and Unfold trailers? They both show off a great deal of what the sound system is capable off. They also have this small infomercial, that explains the basics of their system.

I don't remember SRD or DTS marketing material to be better than this. Also, those Dolby Atmos trailers beat any of those IMAX trailers on pure impact. Both this stupid IDF-only laser-aligned-bla-calibration and the countdown trailer that's also available in 15/70. Especially the Atmos Unfold trailer packs some real punch.

Dolby Atmos might not be as prominently on the marquee, but let's stop comparing apples to oranges, Dolby Atmos is just a SOUND SYSTEM, IMAX is a fully fledged exhibition system. Dolby sells cinema equipment, IMAX sells a concept...

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-11-2014, 04:21 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
IMAX suuround sound layout and lack of masking has been like that since the 70's, did you not know that?

Does it matter if he knew it or not? Because his statement that defending a 5.0/5.1 doesn't work in a time when 7.1 and higher are becoming commonplace is a fair assessment, regardless of whether that layout has been in place since the 70s or not.

Also, wasn't it really only in late-2002 that they started to have a need for a masking, when they started doing the DMR releases that didn't use the whole screen? I've yet to see an IMAX install where the screen is surrounded by walls that are anything other than black, which provides some masking for the movies that fill the whole screen (which before then, would've been all of them).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-11-2014, 09:11 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Petrov
How many seats do you think it seats? I would be interested in knowing how many you think it seats.

That's a stupid question. I haven't got a clue how many it seats because (a) you can't tell from the picture how wide it is, and (b) there could be rows behind the camera. That's why I asked you, jerk.

As for Bobby calling you a "troll," well he's just calling 'em as he sees 'em. If you had any class you would respect his knowledge of signage, branding, marketing and advertising, since he's our resident expert on that subject.

quote: Terry Lynn-Petrov
IMAX suuround sound layout and lack of masking has been like that since the 70's, did you not know that?

Really? Wow, they're even further behind the curve than I thought.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Dolby could prevent their trailers from running on the wrong movie with KDM locks. Could they not?

Well they COULD, but they wouldn't. That's not their job. I can tell you right now that for Dolby to get into the whole business of sending out KDMs so that a given server can only play a given clip if an Atmos movie is playing on that server...well it would be a bookkeeping nightmare, expensive, and a pain in the ass for all involved. It's up to the theater management (and rightly so) to make sure they play the right sound clip with their own system. We could play the Sony 7.1 clips here if we wanted to, but since we don't have that system we don't play those clips.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-11-2014, 09:51 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
First of all when the hell was the color orange ever, I mean ever, a part of Dolby's marketing scheme? They're big on using red, black & silver/grey on a bunch of their cinema processors.

Ummmm Well Mr. Ray Dolby himself liked the color orange. In fact, he picked the color for the CP100...care to guess what it was? Orange. Check out the CP50 next time you see it...the racing stripe across its face...ORANGE. CP50 remotes, ORANGE.

The very first "Cinema Product" from Dolby...the 364 and E2...Orange stripe...The brochure (available here in the warehouse) is orange on its front page.

The CP200 started the RED color for cinema products. In fact, the CP200 had two different colors of red. The first batch had a darker red (almost blood red) and the grey was a darker shade of red than later units.

Now Sam will know which processor better than I...though I think it was the CP650 where the initial color for the stripe across the top was to be Orange...but was later changed to Red. I believe the story goes that Ray was the reason it started out as orange and when the prototype came back something thought it was a mistake and switched it to red.

As for surround 7.1 being a flop...it sure seems to be used on quite a few movies and it is available in quite a few theatres. While one could call it a flop in the sense that Dolby can't have any real ownership of it since one need not have Dolby brand equipment to play it back properly however, their name is associated with the format in the theatrical environment. You don't see "USL-7.1" for instance...but Dolby Surround 7.1 is common. It is like when Kraft used to boast about how much milk was in their cheese. While everyone else making cheese had the same amount of milk...one could no longer market that because it would still refer back to Kraft. The same holds for Surround 7.1...at least in a theatrical sense.

Surround 7.1 has pretty much become our standard for all new-builds...it is just a no-brainer as it doesn't really cost any more and affords one the ability to tune the side and rear surrounds separately.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-11-2014, 10:27 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
That's a stupid question. I haven't got a clue how many it seats because (a) you can't tell from the picture how wide it is, and (b) there could be rows behind the camera. That's why I asked you, jerk.

I was trying to have normal discussion with you and then you start saying stupid shit and now you are starting to act like a complete jack-ass. Assume that the pictures were taking from the same vantage point you idiot.

The theatre in question has 424 seats pre-IMAX conversion. The AVX auditorium with the on-screen advertisement has 530 seats. Both pics were taken from the back row right at the entrance opening. The size of the screen is around 50 feet wide.

quote: Mike Blakesley
As for Bobby calling you a "troll," well he's just calling 'em as he sees 'em. If you had any class you would respect his knowledge of signage, branding, marketing and advertising, since he's our resident expert on that subject.

I have very little respect for Bobby's opinion. He is way too focused on whether or not something has 4K resolution and the panning of the surrounds in Dolby means very little to the average person. Bobby can't get past the looking at IMAX without 15/70 in question.

I also have very little respect for you. I don't think you understand how competitive and difficult the exhibition market is. You are probably the only game in town and when you have real competition, perhaps you should speak up.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Well they COULD, but they wouldn't. That's not their job. I can tell you right now that for Dolby to get into the whole business of sending out KDMs so that a given server can only play a given clip if an Atmos movie is playing on that server...well it would be a bookkeeping nightmare, expensive, and a pain in the ass for all involved.

Don't be an idiot Mike, if Dolby really cared about their branding of Atmos and wanted to ensure that everyone in fact gets a true Dolby Atmos experience, they could easily make sure the KDM's keys are sent out. If IMAX can protect their brand by locking out others, then Dolby can do it as well. There are not that many Dolby Atmos theatres around and at least this way it ensures proper playback and advertising.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
And what's so wrong with the Atmos Amaze and Unfold trailers? They both show off a great deal of what the sound system is capable off. They also have this small infomercial, that explains the basics of their system.

I don't remember SRD or DTS marketing material to be better than this. Also, those Dolby Atmos trailers beat any of those IMAX trailers on pure impact. Both this stupid IDF-only laser-aligned-bla-calibration and the countdown trailer that's also available in 15/70. Especially the Atmos Unfold trailer packs some real punch.

The real problem I have with the current Dolby ads is that it is playing to the same 90's type crowd and it gets added in after all of the other advertising of what the particular theatre has to offer. The Dolby Atmos trailers are nothing special.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Especially the Atmos Unfold trailer packs some real punch.

It is okay at best.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Dolby Atmos might not be as prominently on the marquee, but let's stop comparing apples to oranges, Dolby Atmos is just a SOUND SYSTEM, IMAX is a fully fledged exhibition system. Dolby sells cinema equipment, IMAX sells a concept...

Fair enough, but that won't stop me from saying their current advertising for Atmos sucks.

I am pretty certain that the orange Atmos sign is legit.

quote: Steve Guttag
As for surround 7.1 being a flop...it sure seems to be used on quite a few movies and it is available in quite a few theatres. While one could call it a flop in the sense that Dolby can't have any real ownership of it since one need not have Dolby brand equipment to play it back properly however, their name is associated with the format in the theatrical environment.

I am calling it a flop. It might be around but the average customer does not care.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-11-2014, 11:12 AM:

I referred to "Hear it In Atmos" a few days back and this sign is what I was talking about. I don't care for this approach any more than I did when THX used the "See it in THX" line. It seems lazy and not a credit to the high concept Dolby ads of the past.

As to colors,, the original Orange came from the pro audio units such as the M16 and 360's and even publications. The CP100 was an M16 NR frame reworked into the first cinema processor. The E2/364 and CP50 were orange as well.

I'm not sure where "Dolby Red" came from except these were all decisions Ray Dolby had to approve as style issues and there was a darker red and grey on the first US built CP200's and then a lighter less saturated version on UK built units.

This had to do with the difference between paint colors and ink colors and the way the two offices dealt with them.

I can't say I care for the color scheme on the 850 as it breaks a tradition for no apparent reason and makes one wonder whether Dolby values its past, but that's just me.

IMHO, it's time to close this thread. You have three people swearing, insulting, and calling each other idiots. No further good can come from this thread.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-11-2014, 11:12 AM:

You say a lot of things Terry.

Sam...really? This is like watching a train wreck in progress...abhorrent and yet compulsive to see where the "players" will turn next.

Plus, even Brad weighed in on the thread and despite the bickering/name calling he only spoke up about the idea of adding additional versions of things!

And then the ability to catch Bobby on a marketing/publication mistake? How often does one get to do that? Agreed it isn't like finding out that he missed on a Font or typesetting issue but I'll take what I can!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-11-2014, 11:14 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I have very little respect for Bobby's opinion.

Then why do you waste so much of your time trying to argue with me?

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Where I have serious concerns is in the marketing department. I think it sucks, the trailers are not very good. Dolby is a little late to the game.

Dolby is way the hell ahead of anyone else with regards to object based sound. IMAX is the one who missed the game entirely. Meanwhile Barco, DTS and a few others are trying to come up with an open standards object based sound format. I think Barco is just using that as an opportunity to have theaters delay installing Atmos and consider Auro instead. It's going to take at least a year's worth of software development and then another year of getting infrastructure in place before any of it could roll out to theaters. Atmos is going to be in a lot more theaters and used on a lot more soundtracks by then.

There's nothing wrong with Dolby's marketing of Atmos inside the movie theater. The trailers for Atmos are very effective. Visitors would have a hard time not noticing the extra rows of speakers on the ceiling.

It's outside of the theater where Dolby has to do better. They need better visibility on movie posters, TV commercials and that sort of thing. Some theater chains do a good job hyping Atmos on their web sites and in theaters while others stink at it.

Dolby's web site, as it pertains to Atmos, could be organized a little better. To their credit, it's pretty easy to find Atmos equipped theaters on their installations map. I can't find anything like that for the competing Auro 3D 11.1 format, much less any sort of simple list of installations. Theater chains installing Auro aren't even bothering to list which ones have it.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The real problem I have with the current Dolby ads is that it is playing to the same 90's type crowd and it gets added in after all of the other advertising of what the particular theatre has to offer.

The best place to put a Dolby Atmos trailer is directly before the start of the movie. Trailers for THX and 35mm digital sound formats were handled the same way. If the trailers are put directly before the feature they're seen in their best possible light. The house lights are down completely and just about everyone has gotten seated. If they played the Atmos trailer at the start of the trailer pack half the audience would miss it because of visiting the snack counter or bathrooms.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The Dolby 7.1 flop kind of shows that the general audience does not care.

I criticize Dolby for trying to take branding ownership of a sound format that really doesn't belong to them. It's 7.1 channel Linear PCM.

As for 7.1 itself, it's no flop. It's a very common standard. The Blu-ray format deserves some credit for pushing 7.1 since the Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD Master Audio and LPCM 7.1 formats all were being used on Blu-ray before Dolby started pushing 7.1 Surround in theaters. Commercial movie theaters can wire their sound systems for 7.1 with or without Dolby branded gear. And they're doing so either way by the thousands of screens.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I am calling it a flop. It might be around but the average customer does not care.

You're only calling 7.1 a flop because your beloved IMAX digital theaters can't support it. They top out at 5.0 or 5.1.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
IMAX suuround sound layout and lack of masking has been like that since the 70's, did you not know that?

Back when IMAX was really IMAX they only showed movies that filled the entire screen.

Their move into the multiplex and DMR use on Hollywood studio films changed that. Suddenly they were showing letterboxed movies with no masking on screens meant for 15/70 use. Then they kept the same, screwed up thing in place with the launch of IMAX Digital, rather than doing the correct thing: using curtains and masking on those modest sized screens.

I already had a hatred of common width screens. IMAX sent exhibitors the message that it was not only OK to use common width screens, but they could also save a bunch of money not installing curtains and movable masking. Now customers get a bare trampoline looking thing covering the whole wall. It looks cheap.

Thankfully at least some theaters are resisting that, such as Warren Theaters for instance.

quote: Steve Guttag
Ummmm Well Mr. Ray Dolby himself liked the color orange. In fact, he picked the color for the CP100...care to guess what it was? Orange. Check out the CP50 next time you see it...the racing stripe across its face...ORANGE. CP50 remotes, ORANGE.

I stand corrected on that. However the color orange on the CP750 is a very reddish looking orange, unlike the color on that example Terry posted. I'm still certain that oval orange thing was not produced by Dolby based on the use of type. They use Morgan Sans on all of their branding and advertising materials. The type in the Atmos white papers is set in Morgan Sans. The signage on the Dolby Theatre building (including the roof, visible in Google Earth) is set in Morgan Sans.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-11-2014, 11:24 AM:

It was the CP650 that was going to return the Orange stripe...not the CP750...no production units were issued with the Orange stripe though as it was presumed a mistake though, as the story goes, it was Ray that picked the orange color.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-11-2014, 12:17 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Sam...really? This is like watching a train wreck in progress...abhorrent and yet compulsive to see where the "players" will turn next.

More like a bar fight. If we were all in the same room the stools would have flown around by now.

During the CP55 era Ray chose one product color, got a different one back and decided he liked it better. On such whims does life turn.

There's a memorial service Monday for Ray Dolby so my mind's been in replay mode the last few days. Sorry.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-11-2014, 12:48 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I was trying to have normal discussion with you and then you start saying stupid shit and now you are starting to act like a complete jack-ass. Assume that the pictures were taking from the same vantage point you idiot.

Well why didn't you say that in the first place? Either way, it's still hard to tell from those pics how many seats there are. I asked you a simple question and you chose to respond with a nonsensical question rather than just answer, so I don't know why that makes ME an idiot.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I also have very little respect for you. I don't think you understand how competitive and difficult the exhibition market is. You are probably the only game in town and when you have real competition, perhaps you should speak up.

Well obviously you don't know me very well. True, we have the only theater in town (it's a very small town) but people here have no problem driving long distances to do their shopping, and yes they sometimes go to movies out of town. So I consider those other venues competition. Whether that is valid to you makes no difference to me. There are lots of small town cinemas which just scrape by on "what they've always done." We don't do that here because we DO recognize that there is competition -- not only from other cinemas but from "the living room" as well. Therefore we have a loyal audience, which we have earned.

As for my experience, I've probably forgotten more about this industry than you'll ever know. Not only have I run a movie theater since 1979, but I'm a student of this business, which you would know if you read enough of my posts here. A very large share of what I know, I've learned right here on this site. I'm not a very technical person, I'm more interested in the business/management side of things. I've made mistakes many times and have not been afraid to admit it. You, on the other hand, come off like a smart-ass teenager who can't ever see another side to an argument or admit when he's been proven wrong.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-11-2014, 02:57 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
As for Dolby, they share some blame for theatre owners giving out the wrong messages. IMAX has a big one up on Dolby in that they monitor the theatres "real time" apparentl, I don't know how much truth there is in that but I have told you before, that is for you to decide. I have yet to see a theatre in my area use IMAX in the incorrect way.

Let's try this again: Dolby is not a franchise, like McDonalds, Jack in the Box or IMAX. Dolby produces equipment and licenses technology, just like Sony, Panasonic, Philips, Barco, you name it. They probably don't even WANT to be in the front-line of marketing, that's the job of the exhibitor. There's also just one Dolby theater, which has been named to honor the guy, not to market the brand.

Dolby never marketed their products like IMAX did and unlike IMAX their equipment ended up in almost every professional movie theater and countless screening rooms around the globe. Dolby Atmos is an expensive system to roll out, especially if you want to get all the benefits from it.

Furthermore, there are more Dolby Atmos installs on mainland Europe than IDF installs. IDF has been around since 2008, Dolby Atmos since 2012... But hey, IMAX is doing great in China, or something... You know, the country where somebody can just open up an IMEX theater across the street, using the same bold blue typeface.

In your posts, you make it sound like Dolby Atmos is already a failure, well... Tell me why?

quote:
I even said that the Ass-mos presentation was better.

(Emphasis mine) Do you really think this kind of childish behavior will buy you any credits?

quote:
I have very little respect for Bobby's opinion.

I also have very little respect for you.

Don't be an idiot Mike

(I took the liberty of combining those quotes, which weren't even directed at me.)

It is clear that you do not show much respect for the other members around here. Maybe you should keep in mind that you can still show respect to somebody, even if you do not agree with him or her on every point. The people you call idiots might actually know a thing or two you don't, might have developped a gut feeling that is more often right than wrong and even if they are wrong on certain topics, it's still not helping anyone by treating them like assholes.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The real problem I have with the current Dolby ads is that it is playing to the same 90's type crowd and it gets added in after all of the other advertising of what the particular theatre has to offer. The Dolby Atmos trailers are nothing special.

So, how exactly is this different than IDF? They play one trailer once the "IDF experience" starts, then usually two or three trailers of upcoming IDF releases, then you get the Count-Down trailer followed by the actual "The IMAX Experience" feature.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Meanwhile Barco, DTS and a few others are trying to come up with an open standards object based sound format.

Hmmm... interesting, got any additional info on that?

quote: Sam D. Chavez
More like a bar fight. If we were all in the same room the stools would have flown around by now.

I've never understood the pleasure one could get from correspondence chess, but maybe the equivalent in bar fighting is a bit more entertaining [Wink]

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-11-2014, 03:00 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I can't find anything like that for the competing Auro 3D 11.1 format, much less any sort of simple list of installations. Theater chains installing Auro aren't even bothering to list which ones have it.

There is no hope for Auro, no chance at all.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Some theater chains do a good job hyping Atmos on their web sites and in theaters while others stink at it.

And IMO, this is where Dolby needs to step up to the plate and provide better exhibitor support. After all, if IMAX can get almost all distributors and exhibitors to title their movie "An IMAX 3D Experience" they why can't Dolby get their exhibitors to do it right. I have yet to see any confusion on exhibitors websites displaying mixed messages for IMAX, and IMAX gets this part right.

As for the trailer issue that I have now seen three times in less than a month, it would all be solved with a KDM lock on the trailers. I don't fall for the whole logistics bullshit as once again, if IMAX can prevent the wrong messages in their theatres, then why can't Dolby?

I saw Hobbit 2 advertised outside the theatre, and on the web with "see it" in Dolby Atmos taglines, then the movie starts and it is Dolby 7.1 Surround, most recently The Wolf of Wall Street and Lone Survivor were both advertised with Dolby Atmos trailers. With have digital technology now and it can be prevented.

I will give Dolby credit where they deserve it, calling the format Atmos and not XX.1 was brilliant, customers do not give a shit that the movie is playing in 7.1, 11.1 or 64.1.

I still believe that allowing an exhibitor to add Atmos to any theatre is not good long term for the brand, there is too much risk of a good sound presentation but a really shit picture presentation.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-11-2014, 03:15 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
As for the trailer issue that I have now seen three times in less than a month, it would all be solved with a KDM lock on the trailers.

Solving problems like lack of dedication and honesty with digital walls has almost never lead to any good...

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
most recently The Wolf of Wall Street and Lone Survivor were both advertised with Dolby Atmos trailers.

I don't understand this... The theater you watched it made a special trailer for this? Neither movie has an Atmos mix and has never officially been advertised with Atmos. Or is it just that they ran this trailer AFTER the Atmos trailer? Well, it would be better to run the Atmos trailer before the movie starts, but otherwise, big deal...

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I will give Dolby credit where they deserve it, calling the format Atmos and not XX.1 was brilliant, customers do not give a shit that the movie is playing in 7.1, 11.1 or 64.1.

Dolby didn't call their system 64.1, because it is not 64.1 or 64.2 or whatever...

I've once seen a theater advertise the imm sound system with something like 23.2, but I guess that's because they didn't know how to market an object based sound system to a crowd that's used to stuff like "5.1".

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-11-2014, 04:17 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I don't fall for the whole logistics bullshit as once again, if IMAX can prevent the wrong messages in their theatres, then why can't Dolby?

Because they don't feel the need to babysit their exhibitors maybe? Because they prefer to treat exhibitors like thinking adults rather than irresponsible kids?

I agree with you on one thing, Dolby does not do a good job with distributing its promo material. I don't understand this at all...you can go on their website, hit the Contact Us button, say "HEY! I want to promote your brand in my venue and it won't even cost you anything! Please send me some materials" and you will get ignored. If it wasn't for a Dolby dealer here on Film-Tech, we never would have gotten any promo goodies for our Dolby 3D.

I wish they would make some of their older trailers available. I assume they don't because the logos have been updated and they don't want old logos floating around. I'm still steamed that they have (for some unknown reason) discontinued the "Sphere" trailer in 5.1, and I wish they would come out with a trailer that showed off their sound in a musical way, rather than with all the clanking, banging and whooshing they seem to be stuck on these days. (Maybe it's because with music, they'd have to pay actual musicians, where with simple noise a group of flunkies at keyboards can come up with something? I don't know.)

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-11-2014, 05:13 PM:

This latest chapter is more like batting practice with us all teeing off on Terry, but he seems to be enjoying it.

Sorry to repeat myself, but it's like wrestling a pig in the mud; after a while you realize he's enjoying it.

Why are we indulging him?

Also, I thought Canadians were polite. Not this one for sure.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-11-2014, 05:34 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I agree with you on one thing, Dolby does not do a good job with distributing its promo material. I don't understand this at all...you can go on their website, hit the Contact Us button, say "HEY! I want to promote your brand in my venue and it won't even cost you anything! Please send me some materials" and you will get ignored. If it wasn't for a Dolby dealer here on Film-Tech, we never would have gotten any promo goodies for our Dolby 3D

I would assume they are not interested in advertising their older technology, for Wolverine, Gravity and Hobbit 2, Dolby was giving away Atmos t-shirts and you also got Gravity/Hobbit RealD glasses which was a nice touch.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-11-2014, 06:47 PM:

This is getting silly
Dolby has and Does just like Imax have brand name recognition
They do market and license their products I believe the encoders still have to be rented and used in conformance with their rules just like IMAX owns all there cameras and rent only to approved productions
It was mentioned that Imax always filled the screens until the advent of DMR Not true Imax was originally created to allow for multi images on a screen on a single projector so they no longer required the multi sync machines of Expo67 Most of the IMAX films had cropped and multi imaged collages
In Fact Tiger child the first film only has one shot full screen
And yes there needs to be a bit more professional decorum here this is rapidly sinking to the level of discusions years ago on a certain sound system (who's name can not be mentioned on this forum) and a person (who's name can also not be mentioned on this forum)

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-11-2014, 09:56 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I would assume they are not interested in advertising their older technology

It happened when we installed Dolby 3D which at that time was the big thing they were promoting. The system even came with a form you could send in to order promo materials. I sent the form...nothing, eventually resubmitted it on the website, still nothing. At first I thought maybe we were ignored because of our small size, but then I figured maybe they leave this kind of thing to their dealers and our dealer dropped the ball on it. Either way you'd think they would have at least responded to the website inquiry.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-12-2014, 12:30 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Hmmm... interesting, got any additional info on that?

I read a couple online articles about open standards object based audio here and there. Here's one article from the Hollywood Reporter about it.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
There is no hope for Auro, no chance at all.

Terry, you wouldn't be saying that if you actually did any research about the topic. Regal recently signed a deal to install Auro 11.1 in 20 of their RPX theaters (Regal already has Atmos on 20 of their RPX screens). Cinemark signed a deal to put Auro 11.1 in nearly all of their XD theaters. Cinemark has 91 XD screens with half a dozen more opening before summer. Cinemark has 3 XD screens equipped with Atmos. Carmike has roughly 20 of those "Big D" screens, they have Atmos on one of them in Illinois and Auro 11.1 on a BigD screen in Georgia. Carmike appears to be leaning toward putting Auro on all remaning Big D screens.

Auro 11.1 isn't nearly as good a sound format as Atmos. It doesn't have any many movie mixes as Atmos, but it is getting support from some key movies. Auro is significantly less expensive to install than Atmos. I'm sure Dolby is pretty concerned about Auro.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
And IMO, this is where Dolby needs to step up to the plate and provide better exhibitor support. After all, if IMAX can get almost all distributors and exhibitors to title their movie "An IMAX 3D Experience" they why can't Dolby get their exhibitors to do it right.

With IMAX it's real simple. Anything playing in the IMAX house, even if it's a TV commercial for Folgers coffee crystals, is playing in "The IMAX Experience." Duh.
[Roll Eyes]

Since IMAX is in a revenue sharing partnership with the movie studios and movie theaters this also means there are contracts involved. Some of the stipulations in the contract most certainly involve branding and use of branding. This isn't any different than a douche-bag A-list movie star having a contract to get his name put above the movie title.

Lots of non-theater businesses do "co-op" advertising, such as car dealerships. The dealerships must have their signage and other advertising materials conform to the auto company's branding program. If not, the car manufacturer won't help pay their advertising costs and even force the dealer to remove the offending materials.

Dolby isn't in a position to force movie studios and movie theaters to use their branding a certain way or give them more visibility in a movie's ad campaign. With as much as Atmos costs to install, maybe Dolby should have put it into a revenue sharing model, like Real D. Unfortunately Atmos isn't the kind of system that can be thrown slap dash into hundreds of theaters at a time. It's a more complicated system to install. Dolby's personnel has been doing much if not all the install work.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I don't understand this... The theater you watched it made a special trailer for this? Neither movie has an Atmos mix and has never officially been advertised with Atmos. Or is it just that they ran this trailer AFTER the Atmos trailer?

I think what Terry meant was he watched The Wolf of Wall Street and the theater ran a Dolby Atmos trailer before the movie began. I guess he is claiming the same theater did that on Lone Survivor was well. If true, those would be mistakes. Terry keeps wanting to blame Dolby for those mistakes when 100% of the blame goes to the theater personnel.

Dolby certainly isn't perfect with its marketing. But this is one area where Dolby isn't to blame. Theater operators should know better. However, Dolby could do a much better job educating theater operators and supplying them with marketing materials.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-12-2014, 01:26 AM:

Hmmm, I run out of town to do some installs and Terry comes in and blows up the place with what appears to be nothing more than good old fashioned trolling. (Sorry, there's too much to read and I don't have the time, but in skimming that certainly appears to be what's going on.)

Terry, Atmos WILL become the standard. From what I read the only thing you are right about is that Auro might as well hang up the hat right now, that there is NO WAY it will survive. As far as IMAX goes, it's a joke and it has been ever since they went digital. Their sound systems are poor, they don't understand even the most basic of presentation standards (no masking) and they are running the company purely based upon the name they built for themselves back when their 15/70 system actually meant something. People everywhere are starting to see more and more through their marketing bullshit and IMAX will die pretty quick if they don't make some MAJOR changes to their quality standards.

To quote Joe, if you disagree, you are wrong. Now enough of this bickering.

THREAD CLOSED