Laser IMAX Not supporting with GDC TMS.

[Shibu Paul]

Dear All,
We recently upgraded our IMAX auditorium from Xenon IMAX to Laser IMAX. After the upgrade, our TMS is no longer supported/working properly with the GDC TMS setup.
Has anyone else faced the same issue after upgrading to Laser IMAX? Any suggestions or solutions would be greatly appreciated.

[Steve Guttag]

Have you contacted GDC? They normally support their products very well.

[Shibu Paul]

Have you contacted GDC? They normally support their products very well.

Contacted GDC and they are working.

[Chris Haller]

The lead programmer for my cinema chain was telling me months ago about how the new IMAX auditoriums aren't natively compatible with the GDC TMS, and how they were working on it at that time as well. Must still be a work in progress.

[Leo Enticknap]

I look after a 10-plex with a GDC TMS, one screen of which is an IMAX. We were told during the install (in the fall of 2021) that the IMAX system simply can't interact with a GDC TMS, and that it would have to be treated as standalone. I found that a bit surprising, given that the IMAX DCP player is basically a Barco ICMP with customized software/firmware, and the ICMP (and its variants) certainly can work with the GDC TMS. But we were told that this is a no go, and so left it there.

[Harold Hallikainen]

I recall an effort to standardize TMS/SMS communications, but it was long ago. Here's what Google AI says about it: https://share.google/aimode/DqrKm8O4DsiMSpIea

[Steve Guttag]

Since the API for every server is different (as well as every projector brand), that effort, clearly, never went anywhere. It's a shame because it would make interoperability so much better, at least for functions that are expected from all systems. If a manufacturer wanted an extended API, that would be fine so long as it had the standard functions.

I'm miffed that there is no standard (that is observed) for POS schedules too. The fact that TMS vendors have to accommodate so many variations is absurd. Sure, if you want to have an extended form of your schedule, fine, but, to be DCI compliant, one should have some common requirements in both information and formatting.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Vendors like to double-dip. If you want to build a new TMS nowadays, you have to negotiate with Dolby, GDC, Barco, IMAX, etc. to get access to their vendor-specific API. Because they don't like that this allows the customer to mix-and-match vendors, they want their part of the cut and will probably ask for a licensing fee.

With POS, the situation is even more complex. With decades of legacy and many different local operators, local legislations impacting the way stuff needs to be accounted for, etc., I've given up the hope that we'll ever see ONE global API standard for POS integration. While there are many POS solutions out there with open APIs, there really is no uniform standard...

In case of IMAX though, they should be realistic and just open up their API for free to other integrators. It's not like IMAX has to protect any market here, or they really must live in some kind of wonderland, where every auditorium in a multiplex is an IMAX room.

As for standards... over here in Europe, governments are trying to standardize their Government-to-Business invoicing, using something like PEPPOL, which is already a pretty unmitigated mess... But heck, I guess those consultants and useless intermediaries all need to keep their people employed and busy in the age of AI...

[Steve Guttag]

Part of the DCI specification thing was to eliminate the manufacturers from handcuffing theatre owners. The whole DTS, Dolby, SDDS thing was to be avoided. The theatre owner was to be able to choose what equipment was best for them without worry about what worked with what.

For the most part, that seemed to follow as the SDI card slot was standardized to ensure one type of IMB connection would work. Christie tried to force their way with the Solaria 1 (which backfired as the IMB S2 was a guaranteed failure) and now Barco is clearly charging people to put their IMB/IMS into the Barco slot.

DCI compliance should not be awarded to equipment that seeks to profit off of allowing the exhibitor to choose what server they desire. As it is, Barco prices their server with projector incredibly favorably since they combine the ICP-D with the ICMP-X(S).

Then again, I think DCI compliance should enforce a 2000:1, minimum contrast ratio. These S2K projectors with their abysmal contrast ratios in the 1600:1 ballpark shouldn't be there either.

[Leo Enticknap]

...and now Barco is clearly charging people to put their IMB/IMS into the Barco slot.

I caught a whiff of that when looking through the spare parts page on their site for an SP2K model, and saw that one of the entries was "IMB license." The price listed was significant. The installer obtains the license by asking the manufacturer of the IMB/IMS for it, not Barco, which has always struck me as counterintuitive (the license is actually installed in the projector, so why wouldn't you ask the manufacturer of the projector for it directly?). But if the IMB/IMS manufacturer has to pay Barco for it, that would explain that. Presumably these fees are now being factored into the list price of every IMB/IMS now sold, even those that are destined for Christies and Sharp/NECs.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

It is more likely that Imax has patents and copyrights on some aspects of that end of the system, and their software. That would be very typical of Imax to do. There weren't other Imax film type systems until those patents expired. Then Imax tried to thwart that by designing a new cam unit... only to be cut down by another new, and even better cam unit invented by the copycat that was building the clones. I suppose if this is the issue GDC could design a way around it all, however it is highly unlikely that it would be financially beneficial to do.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Even if you write technical specifications with all the good intentions in mind, like an open market place with little to no vendor-lock-in, then you'll see that those specifications will be mingled and twisted into such a form that new loopholes will inevitably arise. Could you've thought about an "IMB licensing scheme" beforehand? Maybe, but even if you'd somehow managed to foresee that one, you didn't foresee any of the other infinite ways of essentially achieving the same.

I generally like Barco, because I do think their engineers actually care about good engineering, but stuff like this and stuff like their almost non-existent warranty on replacement parts does get under your skin.

When we bought our first DP4K machine for our screening room like 14-or-so years ago, the scheme over here in Europe was that the Barco Alchemy ICMP was "free". We even did get the 4K 60FPS "upgrade license" for free back then (later it became part of the standard offering). If you're already operating on a budget, those extra "Ks" you don't need to shell out are an easy business decision, but also essentially a vendor lock-in scheme.

It is more likely that Imax has patents and copyrights on some aspects of that end of the system, and their software. That would be very typical of Imax to do. There weren't other Imax film type systems until those patents expired. Then Imax tried to thwart that by designing a new cam unit... only to be cut down by another new, and even better cam unit invented by the copycat that was building the clones. I suppose if this is the issue GDC could design a way around it all, however it is highly unlikely that it would be financially beneficial to do.

Copyrights you get for free on anything you write, including software. Patents need to be publicly published and grand you a temporary monopoly (max 20 years in most jurisdictions) on the technology described in the patent. Neither really makes sense in this case though. IMAX doesn't run theaters themselves and theaters use TMS software to keep their stuff running across X numbers of rooms. There is nothing proprietary with uploading a DCP and scheduling it for playback, also, there is very little there that warrants a patent. Their goal should actually to play nice with theatre's TMS systems, as their revenue model is collecting their share on every sold ticket. The smoother this process runs, the more money is left over for them.

But yeah, maybe they're playing hard-to-get because they're IMAX after all and very special... They're Canadian though, people told me that they're nice people...

[Steve Guttag]

Yeah...exhibitors don't pay, directly for the S4 licenses but it's in there somewhere. Why bother having a license to use the slot by a 3rd party if you aren't charging for it. And yes, you source the license from the IMB/IMS manufacturer. I find the whole thing distasteful. This has nothing to do with Barco's engineers as I find their product design, for the most part, exceptional. They are, by FAR, the most pleasant to work on. I do think they went a tad overboard on the cheap plastic for the skins on the S4 covers...they are flimsy and break too easily with normal use.

Yes, Barco's parts warranty is absurdly short (just covers infant mortality). Then again, they'd tell you to just by their extended warranty and not worry about it...it's covered. Depending on screen count, their extended warranty is, indeed, a good value.

[Elia Orselli]

I think that Barco ICP-D license system is just to keep a count of ICMP vs other manifacturer IMBs. Personally, when I install a new SP projector with ICP-D, I ask licenses both for Dolby and GDC, to be sure that even a temporary unit from a different brand could be used without touching the 200 hours grace period

[Steve Guttag]

Since Barco has different part numbers for the projector with the ICMP and the ICP-D...it isn't an inventory thing. They are going out of their way to penalize people for not buying the ICMP. Look at the cost of the projector with the ICMP versus the ICP-D and a 3rd party server. Then look at the price of upgrading an existing projector to either. They are, effectively, low-balling the server to ensure it is the low-cost option.