Large Format/"Premium" Theaters (IMAX 15/70, Digital IMAX, XD, ETX, RPX, etc.)

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Ok, makes no sense but I will play along.

The entire movie of SkyFall is like your 2MP cell phone, blowing that up and showing it on you large TV screen when it was only designed for your computer monitor.

Actually, that's exactly what you've been saying all along!

Again:

You can shoot using whatever recording medium you want, and you can exhibit on whatever size screen you want. These are two separate things.

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

Actually, that's exactly what you've been saying all along!

Again:

All I have been trying to say is that 65mm Panavision is still way better projected on 5 perf 70mm film stock than traditional 35mm or even 2K digital. It totally deserves credit as a large format exhibition medium. Those are great theaters.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

All I have been trying to say is that 65mm Panavision is still way better projected on 5 perf 70mm film stock than traditional 35mm or even 2K digital. It totally deserves credit as a large format exhibition medium. Those are great theaters.

Exhibition: How you show a movie
(film or digital projection, screen size, sound system, seats, enclosed vs. open air, etc.)

Photography: How you record a movie
(film -- 8mm/16mm/35mm/70mm, digital -- various resolutions, lenses, flat/spherical/anamorphic, etc.)

If you're so inclined, one could show a movie shot on 70mm film on your garage door. The film print is very high rez, yes, but the exhibition sucks.

This thread's primary purpose is to focus on EXHIBITION, not photography.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

All I have been trying to say is that 65mm Panavision is still way better projected on 5 perf 70mm film stock than traditional 35mm or even 2K digital. It totally deserves credit as a large format exhibition medium. Those are great theaters.

I agree.

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

Exhibition: How you show a movie
(film or digital projection, screen size, sound system, seats, enclosed vs. open air, etc.)

Photography: How you record a movie
(film -- 8mm/16mm/35mm/70mm, digital -- various resolutions, lenses, flat/spherical/anamorphic, etc.)

If you're so inclined, one could show a movie shot on 70mm film on your garage door. The film print is very high rez, yes, but the exhibition sucks.

This thread's primary purpose is to focus on EXHIBITION, not photography.

I'm not talking about photography, I posted a list of theaters who are able to exhibit 70mm motion pictures. That is about exhibition.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

I'm not talking about photography, I posted a list of theaters who are able to exhibit 70mm motion pictures. That is about exhibition.

...yes, and again, just b/c those theaters can project 70mm film does not mean that they are LARGE FORMAT EXHIBITORS. The Alamo uses a normal size screen, no bigger than what you get at the multiplex.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

...yes, and again, just b/c those theaters can project 70mm film does not mean that they are LARGE FORMAT EXHIBITORS. The Alamo uses a normal size screen, no bigger than what you get at the multiplex.

If they are projecting 70mm (regardless of the screen size) then they are large format exhibitor.

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

If they are projecting 70mm (regardless of the screen size) then they are large format exhibitor.

Agreed! I have no clue why I just got the Godzilla facepalm!

I'm sorry the Alamo is running 70mm on a screen that doesn't cut it.. Jeeeez.

[joeydrunk]

maybe pre atmos

Originally Posted by pagemaster

This is not exactly true. It was also made for the sound, as far back as the 50s, there was multi-track sound, this was made by magnetic processes. That is why the negative is 65mm

A movie like Empire Strikes Back would have a 70mm 6-track Dolby Sound that was far superior to anything today.

[42041]

Who cares how big the screen is? You could project a movie on the bloody moon, what matters is the size of the image in your visual field. Is there a multiplex out that doesn't allow you to sit uncomfortably close to the screen?

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by 42041

Who cares how big the screen is? You could project a movie on the bloody moon, what matters is the size of the image in your visual field. Is there a multiplex out that doesn't allow you to sit uncomfortably close to the screen?

:sigh:

In addition to viewing distance, you also have to account for viewing angle (how far to the left/right) and viewing height. I want to look at the screen dead on, not strain my neck by looking up for 2 hours.

[ZoetMB]

Watching traditional digital projection on a larger screen is not necessarily a better experience as screen brightness diminishes. That's why digital IMAX uses two projectors. IMO, they're never going to achieve really sharp focus until they can go back to one projector.

While I haven't seen a true IMAX presentation in years, the last time I saw one at the Loew's Lincoln Square (mentioned earlier in this thread), I felt like I was forced to sit too close to the screen and the seams of the screen were visible (and distracting) in bright scenes. I also do not like the 1.44 ratio for narrative films, especially films that were intended for widescreen.

I did see Skyfall at a LieMax theatre and like ETX presentations, it was slightly better than what has become the standard presentation of films in theatres, which has gotten pretty awful lately. Much of the audio was way too LOUD and incredibly annoying. When will producers learn that it's dynamic range that has impact and that constantly over-driven levels just result in audience tedium.

I think that the AMC/Loews merger really hurt presentation quality. AMC has recently been purchased by a Chinese company. Hard to say whether this will make things better or worse. I'm hoping they invest in the American theatres to make them better. I've been in Manhattan theatres in the last two years, which used to pride themselves on great presentation, where audio was coming out of the wrong channels (center channel coming out of the left) and where they leave the 3D filter on the Sony 4K projector when playing back 2D movies, thereby destroying screen brightness and color. It's a disgrace and a recipe for theatre suicide. Even the Ziegfeld, where many movie premieres are held, isn't what it used to be (probably because the entire Clearview chain is for sale). Are they trying to go out of business?

I do prefer seeing films in a LieMax or ETX theatre (haven't seen RPX yet), but we shouldn't have to pay extra - it's how all decent theatres should present movies all the time. The LieMax screen was probably between 50' and 60' wide. I don't think the original screen in that theatre was much smaller.

My best recent experience was seeing Taken2 in Dolby Atmos, presented in an ETX theatre. (The film itself wasn't very good, but the sound was spectacular). I'm going to see "Life of Pi" tomorrow in the same theatre, also in Dolby Atmos.

For those of you thinking that the 48fps Hobbit movie is going to have great presentation, be careful of what you wish for. At 48fps, action scenes will be much clearer, but it might have the dreaded "soap opera" effect, which I would find disastrous. At some convention when a preview was played, perhaps ComicCon, it was badly reviewed and WB is supposedly downplaying the 48fps. However, what I've seen so far in TV spots sort of looks okay.

[joeydrunk]

Completley disagree, so your saying holding your ipad up to your face is the same as seeing a movie on an 80ft screen(or whatever) sitting in the middle row. Of course a big screen is different and better.

Originally Posted by 42041

Who cares how big the screen is? You could project a movie on the bloody moon, what matters is the size of the image in your visual field. Is there a multiplex out that doesn't allow you to sit uncomfortably close to the screen?

[joeydrunk]

+1....Absolutely

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

:sigh:

In addition to viewing distance, you also have to account for viewing angle (how far to the left/right) and viewing height. I want to look at the screen dead on, not strain my neck by looking up for 2 hours.

[joeydrunk]

I am trully excited to see the movie in 48fps, it was at the cinemacon not comicon and its a whole new experience we have to get use to, Peter Jackson said afterword it takes at least 15 minutes to get into, what they saw was just 10 mins of a bunch of clips that hadnt gone through post production. it was completely differen than what the finished product in the intended environment is suppose to look like, also 3d is much improved with hfr. i really think the whole experience of each factor will help bring it together which is his intention- the atmos, the 3d, top of the line sound system/screen/4k projection, all of this will make the hfr come together and be more imersive. were just not use to 48fps, weve been watching movies in 24fps since the 20's solely becuase that was the cheapest possible solution, it had nothing to do with optimal visual experience. we have to give it a real chance. if we had been watching in 48fps this whole time and 24fps just came out people would propably have horrible htings to say about it. i am very optimistic, if i dont like it im going to at least give it a few movies to decide wether i dont like it or not...if i dont like it i will be the first to say and eat my words, i will jump on the anti hfr bandwagon with you. .....change is enevitable.

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Watching traditional digital projection on a larger screen is not necessarily a better experience as screen brightness diminishes. That's why digital IMAX uses two projectors. IMO, they're never going to achieve really sharp focus until they can go back to one projector.

While I haven't seen a true IMAX presentation in years, the last time I saw one at the Loew's Lincoln Square (mentioned earlier in this thread), I felt like I was forced to sit too close to the screen and the seams of the screen were visible (and distracting) in bright scenes. I also do not like the 1.44 ratio for narrative films, especially films that were intended for widescreen.

I did see Skyfall at a LieMax theatre and like ETX presentations, it was slightly better than what has become the standard presentation of films in theatres, which has gotten pretty awful lately. Much of the audio was way too LOUD and incredibly annoying. When will producers learn that it's dynamic range that has impact and that constantly over-driven levels just result in audience tedium.

I think that the AMC/Loews merger really hurt presentation quality. AMC has recently been purchased by a Chinese company. Hard to say whether this will make things better or worse. I'm hoping they invest in the American theatres to make them better. I've been in Manhattan theatres in the last two years, which used to pride themselves on great presentation, where audio was coming out of the wrong channels (center channel coming out of the left) and where they leave the 3D filter on the Sony 4K projector when playing back 2D movies, thereby destroying screen brightness and color. It's a disgrace and a recipe for theatre suicide. Even the Ziegfeld, where many movie premieres are held, isn't what it used to be (probably because the entire Clearview chain is for sale). Are they trying to go out of business?

I do prefer seeing films in a LieMax or ETX theatre (haven't seen RPX yet), but we shouldn't have to pay extra - it's how all decent theatres should present movies all the time. The LieMax screen was probably between 50' and 60' wide. I don't think the original screen in that theatre was much smaller.

My best recent experience was seeing Taken2 in Dolby Atmos, presented in an ETX theatre. (The film itself wasn't very good, but the sound was spectacular). I'm going to see "Life of Pi" tomorrow in the same theatre, also in Dolby Atmos.

For those of you thinking that the 48fps Hobbit movie is going to have great presentation, be careful of what you wish for. At 48fps, action scenes will be much clearer, but it might have the dreaded "soap opera" effect, which I would find disastrous. At some convention when a preview was played, perhaps ComicCon, it was badly reviewed and WB is supposedly downplaying the 48fps. However, what I've seen so far in TV spots sort of looks okay.

[42041]

Originally Posted by joeydrunk

Completley disagree, so your saying holding your ipad up to your face is the same as seeing a movie on an 80ft screen(or whatever) sitting in the middle row. Of course a big screen is different and better.

Not a good comparison, since with an iPad, your eyes have to focus very close to your face, which is not comfortable, since the muscles that control the lenses in your eyeballs have to tense up. With any reasonably sized movie screen, your eyes are essentially relaxed and focused to infinity and there is no sense of having your head too close to the display. I don't feel any less immersion or lack of scale at a regular-sized screen than I do watching an IMAX blowup at the same viewing angle.

70mm IMAX would be compelling if movies were actually shot for the IMAX paradigm, but they're not. They're all shot to be seen in regular theaters and that forces you to watch them in IMAX like you would in a regular theater, rather than having the visuals encompass your entire field of vision. With the resolution, framing and camera movement of most movies, watching them that way would just give you a headache. As far as I'm concerned, IMAX blowups are a waste of money.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

For those of you thinking that the 48fps Hobbit movie is going to have great presentation, be careful of what you wish for. At 48fps, action scenes will be much clearer, but it might have the dreaded "soap opera" effect, which I would find disastrous. At some convention when a preview was played, perhaps ComicCon, it was badly reviewed and WB is supposedly downplaying the 48fps. However, what I've seen so far in TV spots sort of looks okay.

It was at CinemaCon.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayli...onse-20120424#

[joeydrunk]

your the one who brought up sitting uncomfortably close to the screen, i was saying that sitting close to the screen on a small screen so it appears bigger is not the same as sitting in the middle row of a large screen-even if your field of view is exactly the same with both cases because of exactly the points you made with the ipad example- and having to crank your neck up too. also i was being overly dramatic poking fun of you with my example, you get my point though.

Originally Posted by 42041

Not a good comparison, since with an iPad, your eyes have to focus very close to your face, which is not comfortable, since the muscles that control the lenses in your eyeballs have to tense up. With any reasonably sized movie screen, your eyes are essentially relaxed and focused to infinity and there is no sense of having your head too close to the display. I don't feel any less immersion or lack of scale at a regular-sized screen than I do watching an IMAX blowup at the same viewing angle.

70mm IMAX would be compelling if movies were actually shot for the IMAX paradigm, but they're not. They're all shot to be seen in regular theaters and that forces you to watch them in IMAX like you would in a regular theater, rather than having the visuals encompass your entire field of vision. With the resolution, framing and camera movement of most movies, watching them that way would just give you a headache. As far as I'm concerned, IMAX blowups are a waste of money.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by joeydrunk

your the one who brought up sitting uncomfortably close to the screen, i was saying that sitting close to the screen on a small screen so it appears bigger is not the same as sitting in the middle row of a large screen-even if your field of view is exactly the same with both cases because of exactly the points you made with the ipad example- and having to crank your neck up too. also i was being overly dramatic poking fun of you with my example, you get my point though.

Just ignore him. He doesn't understand sarcasm.

[42041]

Originally Posted by joeydrunk

your the one who brought up sitting uncomfortably close to the screen, i was saying that sitting close to the screen on a small screen so it appears bigger is not the same as sitting in the middle row of a large screen-even if your field of view is exactly the same with both cases because of exactly the points you made with the ipad example- and having to crank your neck up too. also i was being overly dramatic poking fun of you with my example, you get my point though.

Well obviously we're not talking about ipads are we? A 10" screen and a 30' screen are completely different animals in terms of viewing discomfort. Once you're looking at something about 20 feet from your eye, to the eyeball that's essentially the same as looking at something on the other side of the galaxy, so the mechanisms of visual discomfort are completely different. I think sitting at a 60degree viewing angle from a 60" TV already provides more immersive viewing than sitting at a 30degree angle from a movie screen.
Whether you have to crane your neck is up to the configuration of a particular theater.