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

[xbs2034]

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/cinema/t...-releases.html

Dolby has finally added a list of previous and upcoming Dolby Vision titles to their website.

Based on their Atmos page which this was added to, we can still probably assume they won't be the fastest at updating the page (indeed on here I see outdated release dates for Alien Covenant and Kingsman 2) and may get information wrong sometimes, but clearly labeling titles as Vision/Atmos has always been something I felt Dolby should do if they want Dolby Cinema to compete with IMAX (where you know you are getting IMAX mastered visuals and an IMAX specific sound mix when you buy your ticket).

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I blame the chains and their installing IMAX-Digital screens to the masses - going the low road aren't they.

I blame IMAX primarily for this. They could have stuck to a more strict standard and still put IMAX screens in multiplexes. There is a true IMAX screen with the appropriate aspect ratio and extremely steep seating angles at the Palms Hotel in Las Vegas. It is "only" 41 feet tall, which is shorter than some of the LieMAX screens across the world. But it has the appropriate aspect ratio and the seats are at a very steep angle compared to the screen.

http://www.lfexaminer.com/searchResu...=Las+Vegas+Bre

The Vegas Palms IMAX feels like a real IMAX screen because it is a real IMAX screen regardless of the size. There are only 183 seats, which probably gave them the ability to put the screen closer to the audience and perhaps even play with the seating angles more than a typical true IMAX screen. Usually there are 350-400 seats (or more) in a true IMAX, so this was a much smaller auditorium...meaning this is a perfect example of how "multiplex IMAX" conversions should have been handled all along.

Even a large LieMAX screen is still LieMAX because when you walk into the theater, the seats are typical stadium seating with a serious lack of immersion into the screen. With this Palms IMAX, I knew as soon as I walked in that it was the real deal based on the angle of the seats and the appearance of the screen compared to the seats. It takes up your entire field of vision, as IMAX is supposed to do.

I feel like IMAX could have insisted that each new multiplex conversion be handled in the same way as the Vegas Palms IMAX. You don't need a 60-70 foot tall building to do it right. But you need very steep angles in the seating. Apparently IMAX and the theaters are too lazy/cheap to do it the right way with the appropriate aspect ratio and very steep seating angles. So they give you standard theater seating with a bigger screen that looks very similar to your typical 1.85:1 screens and charge the same as true IMAX. Lame!

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Blu-Malibu2009

I blame IMAX primarily for this. They could have stuck to a more strict standard and still put IMAX screens in multiplexes. There is a true IMAX screen with the appropriate aspect ratio and extremely steep seating angles at the Palms Hotel in Las Vegas. It is "only" 41 feet tall, which is shorter than some of the LieMAX screens across the world. But it has the appropriate aspect ratio and the seats are at a very steep angle compared to the screen.

http://www.lfexaminer.com/searchResu...=Las+Vegas+Bre

The Vegas Palms IMAX feels like a real IMAX screen because it is a real IMAX screen regardless of the size. There are only 183 seats, which probably gave them the ability to put the screen closer to the audience and perhaps even play with the seating angles more than a typical true IMAX screen. Usually there are 350-400 seats (or more) in a true IMAX, so this was a much smaller auditorium...meaning this is a perfect example of how "multiplex IMAX" conversions should have been handled all along.

Even a large LieMAX screen is still LieMAX because when you walk into the theater, the seats are typical stadium seating with a serious lack of immersion into the screen. With this Palms IMAX, I knew as soon as I walked in that it was the real deal based on the angle of the seats and the appearance of the screen compared to the seats. It takes up your entire field of vision, as IMAX is supposed to do.

I feel like IMAX could have insisted that each new multiplex conversion be handled in the same way as the Vegas Palms IMAX. You don't need a 60-70 foot tall building to do it right. But you need very steep angles in the seating. Apparently IMAX and the theaters are too lazy/cheap to do it the right way with the appropriate aspect ratio and very steep seating angles. So they give you standard theater seating with a bigger screen that looks very similar to your typical 1.85:1 screens and charge the same as true IMAX. Lame!

I saw (heard) 'The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2' there in DTS-X ... uh... like wow!! too bad studio support (or the lack thereof) is basically killing it

[ITDEFX101]

I know theater chains are like the airlines by ordering more seats in a smaller to be cramped into a smaller plane, but some theaters are ridiculous having seats within 50 feet of the base of the screen. Who the hell sits in the front row area of an IMAX screen? That's way too close for a screen that big.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

I know theater chains are like the airlines by ordering more seats in a smaller to be cramped into a smaller plane, but some theaters are ridiculous having seats within 50 feet of the base of the screen. Who the hell sits in the front row area of an IMAX screen? That's way too close for a screen that big.

You would be surprised. Some people like sitting at the very front even on very large screens.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Blu-Malibu2009

You would be surprised. Some people like sitting at the very front even on very large screens.

Back in my college days, I didn't mind sitting in the front seat...now I sit in the far rear right/left. If it's not a crowded screen, I sit rear center below the projector lol. The only time I had to get close (but not super close) was for TFA. Even in RPX and being there 90 mins early all the seats were taken on the top areas. I am like damn but it was ok, until people got lazy and jumped the rails above us to use the bathroom.

[UFAlien]

I like to sit more or less in the center of the auditorium. One thing I like about my local XD screen is that the seating is angled steeply enough that the center row is almost at the center of the screen height - certainly high enough not to have to feel like you're "looking up" at it. Helps with immersion and perceived size, too. I went to the Regal RPX in Boston once and was thoroughly unimpressed; the screen was very big, probably bigger than my local XD, but the stadium seating was at such a shallow angle it essentially negated the screen size. They have installed Atmos there since I've been, though, which I'm admittedly jealous of since Auro 11.1 is basically unsupported and highly disappointing even when it's actually used (IMO).

[Dreamliner330]

I've yet to be impressed by Atmos. Most movies rarely use rear channels as it is.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

I've yet to be impressed by Atmos. Most movies rarely use rear channels as it is.

interestingly i thought the Atmos mix of "Rogue One" was weak compared to the 7.1 mix.

the one 2016 mix that really surprised me was the overly bombastic 5.1 mix of "Inferno" - maybe it was the ascoustics of the room and where i was sitting but the sound just seemed to be emulating in every direction - it put object based mixing to shame.

[Dubstar]

Nolan fans in the DC metro area take note:

"Interstellar" at the Natural History Museum in 15/70 with "The Dark Knight", "The Dark Knight Rises" and "Dunkirk" prologues prior to the feature film - January 15 and 29

[Geoff D]

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

Nolan fans in the DC metro area take note:

"Interstellar" at the Natural History Museum in 15/70 with "The Dark Knight", "The Dark Knight Rises" and "Dunkirk" prologues prior to the feature film - January 15 and 29

Jealous of the folks in DC.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

Nolan fans in the DC metro area take note:

"Interstellar" at the Natural History Museum in 15/70 with "The Dark Knight", "The Dark Knight Rises" and "Dunkirk" prologues prior to the feature film - January 15 and 29

Oh my... wish I could be there for that.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I loved the 2.76:1 frame, and visually it was a big improvement over TFA. Excellent framing and composition. Very cinematic.

Correct me if I'm wrong but 'Rogue One' is supposed to be 2.39:1 everywhere. It was shot on Ultra Panavision but final crop was 2.39:1 all the way. A friend of mine said that his LieMax screen cropped the movie to fill the 1.89:1 aspect ratio. He doesn't pay much attention to aspect ratio, so he may be wrong.

Chinese LieMax.jpg

Even though this Chinese screen has been branded IMAX, it's not even LieMax. It's just a large 2.39:1 cinemascope screen. Is IMAX putting its stamp on everything nowadays? Will there be no proper IMAX screen then, just a name slapped on?

[UFAlien]

It's something of a myth that IMAX Digital screens are standardized at 1.90:1. They're built to fit the auditorium and come in a large range of ratios from full-height IMAX (conversions of old film screens) to 2.17:1 (the AMC Columbia IMAX screen in Maryland). Full scope isn't that much of a stretch. What I'm more concerned about in that image is the shallowness of the stadium seating angle - a big part of IMAX is supposed to be bringing you close to the screen with steeper angles to increase immersion. This is so shallow it looks to largely negate the effect of the large screen.

As to your friend's statement about cropping, I believe it (though not necessarily the exact aspect ratio). I used to go to the AMC Loews Boston Common IMAX Digital screen, which has a ratio of 2.07:1, and they always cropped scope films to fit the screen.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

Nolan fans in the DC metro area take note:

"Interstellar" at the Natural History Museum in 15/70 with "The Dark Knight", "The Dark Knight Rises" and "Dunkirk" prologues prior to the feature film - January 15 and 29

DAMN IT. Should I go for it!?

I went to see Interstellar last September in 15/70, but I haven't seen the prologues in 15/70. (I saw "The Dark Knight" prologue from the Batman Begins Blu-ray, and the "Dunkirk" prologue in Laser before Rogue One)

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

DAMN IT. Should I go for it!?

I went to see Interstellar last September in 15/70, but I haven't seen the prologues in 15/70. (I saw "The Dark Knight" prologue from the Batman Begins Blu-ray, and the "Dunkirk" prologue in Laser before Rogue One)

well if your not going tonight - go go on the 29th !!

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

I went to see Interstellar last September in 15/70, but I haven't seen the prologues in 15/70. (I saw "The Dark Knight" prologue from the Batman Begins Blu-ray, and the "Dunkirk" prologue in Laser before Rogue One)

How does Laser compare to 15/70 in terms of image quality? Is it a worthy digital equivalent of IMAX film projection?

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

DAMN IT. Should I go for it!?

I went to see Interstellar last September in 15/70, but I haven't seen the prologues in 15/70. (I saw "The Dark Knight" prologue from the Batman Begins Blu-ray, and the "Dunkirk" prologue in Laser before Rogue One)

Yes, do it!

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

How does Laser compare to 15/70 in terms of image quality? Is it a worthy digital equivalent of IMAX film projection?

I have seen the Dunkirk Prologue twice in IMAX Laser on a 62 foot tall giant IMAX screen. The Laser projection looks great, but not quite as good as 70mm IMAX projection. Next generation IMAX Laser with dual 8k instead of dual 4k will be the true replacement IMHO.