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

[Geoff D]

Given how he staunchly defended his decision not to do that for the Ghost Protocol BD, I'd say no - although with the Mouse leaning on his shoulders this time it might be a different story.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Given how he staunchly defended his decision not to do that for the Ghost Protocol BD, I'd say no - although with the Mouse leaning on his shoulders this time it might be a different story.

One of the most bone-headed decisions ever, alongside the lack of an IMAX version of Oblivion.

[Dwayne Hicks]

IMAX is incredible in picture and sound. My favorite format by far.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

One of the most bone-headed decisions ever, alongside the lack of an IMAX version of Oblivion.

I agree. What makes it even more galling is that it's the only movie shot with alternating aspects on 15/70 that isn't represented that way on Blu-ray, like Brad Bird's cinematic scruples are somehow more lofty than those of Chris Nolan, JJ Abrams, Francis Lawrence or, uh, Michael Bay. Okay, I'll give you the last one but still, come on Brad! If everyone else can swallow their pride and bring the IMAX version home, why not you?

(I'm not too bothered about the open matte 1.90 movies though, they tend to be all-digital affairs and not true 15/70 anyway, like the aforementioned Oblivion, Skyfall and indeed Tomorrowland. All I saw was lots more dead space when watching the opened-up 16:9 version of Skyfall on TV.)

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

All I saw was lots more dead space when watching the opened-up 16:9 version of Skyfall on TV.

I thought it was better composed than the scope version.

[Geoff D]

I'm sure you do, but it's not my cup of tea.

[Trigen]

Originally Posted by Dwayne Hicks

IMAX is incredible in picture and sound. My favorite format by far.

In picture, yes; although I don't know what, if anything, their DMR process does for the video.

In terms of audio, Imax lacks sorely as it is still a 5 channel format. Even though it will be 12 channel soon, it will still be lacking behind Dolby Atmos (and depending on how it is implemented DTS:X). Even Auro will surpass Imax with the implementation of 21 channels. Add to that the point source nature of placement and the eq Imax uses which emphasises highs and Imax sound doesn't seem that special, rather fatigue inducing.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Trigen

In picture, yes; although I don't know what, if anything, their DMR process does for the video.

In terms of audio, Imax lacks sorely as it is still a 5 channel format. Even though it will be 12 channel soon, it will still be lacking behind Dolby Atmos (and depending on how it is implemented DTS:X). Even Auro will surpass Imax with the implementation of 21 channels. Add to that the point source nature of placement and the eq Imax uses which emphasises highs and Imax sound doesn't seem that special, rather fatigue inducing.

The problem with Atmos is they don't have a speaker standard. Short of having an awful projection staff that mucks everything up (which does happen), every IMAX sounds the same within realistic proportions, because every theater is getting the same equipment. Obviously that isn't necessarily true once you hit the bigger theaters, but even then they're strictly regulated.

The one Atmos experience I've had was dreadful (Klipsch speakers w/ Crown amps), and didn't even come close to replicating the audio quality of my Interstellar IMAX experience. I'm sure if an Atmos theater uses like... Meyer sound equipment and is in a great acoustic environment it'll rival the best of IMAX sound there is, but that's few and far between.

[Scorpion Soldier]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

I thought it was better composed than the scope version.

For Skyfall I'd have to disagree. I thought the open mate version looked great on IMAX screens, but I found the composition to be a bit off on TV. Though the TV broadcast does include more vertical information being showcased at 1.78:1, which I found to be an Important point of interest. 1.90:1 to 1.78:1 may not seem like a world of difference to some, but even a jump for example like 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 can make or break the presentation.

I did do a little test with the tv broadcast though, cropping the opened up frame to 2.00:1, which is slightly more narrow than the IMAX presentation, but still taller than the regular presentation. Adjusted the sections frame by frame to properly showcase the composition and this middle ground looked particularly immersion in a way, with less of the distracting headroom the TV broadcast showcased.

For Oblivion I highly prefer the open matte presentation though, which I found as well composed as it's scope counterpart.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

The problem with Atmos is they don't have a speaker standard. Short of having an awful projection staff that mucks everything up (which does happen), every IMAX sounds the same within realistic proportions, because every theater is getting the same equipment. Obviously that isn't necessarily true once you hit the bigger theaters, but even then they're strictly regulated.

The one Atmos experience I've had was dreadful (Klipsch speakers w/ Crown amps), and didn't even come close to replicating the audio quality of my Interstellar IMAX experience. I'm sure if an Atmos theater uses like... Meyer sound equipment and is in a great acoustic environment it'll rival the best of IMAX sound there is, but that's few and far between.

This is true. IMAX has a set standard. Atmos is flexible, but a theater could have as little as 5.1 and advertise itself as an Atmos theater. >_<

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

This is true. IMAX has a set standard. Atmos is flexible, but a theater could have as little as 5.1 and advertise itself as an Atmos theater. >_<

I should add that in my experience, for whatever reason, the big boy IMAX theater's sound quality is an enormous improvement from converted theaters. Having seen Interstellar in two converted IMAX's as well as a 15/70 theater, the 15/70 theater was hitting frequencies that were just non-existent in the converts.

Even so, the digital IMAX's were a significant improvement in both clarity and power over my Atmos experience (Empirical Theater, Portland). The only rival I've had to IMAX's audio is Meyer's systems. I'm itching to get to one of their Atmos locations.

My biggest compliment to IMAX's sound is that after 5 years of seeing virtually every big blockbuster at one of their theaters, I've only needed to ask them to crank up the volume twice. One of my biggest frustrations about going to the movies is how little attention they pay to proper volume levels. With IMAX I rarely need to stress about needing to run out 5 minutes into the movie to ask a manager to turn the volume up (I needed to with Mad Max today, and it was annoying as hell).

[jscoggins]

D'accord, je prefere 15/70 aussi.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Trigen

In picture, yes; although I don't know what, if anything, their DMR process does for the video.

In terms of audio, Imax lacks sorely as it is still a 5 channel format. Even though it will be 12 channel soon, it will still be lacking behind Dolby Atmos (and depending on how it is implemented DTS:X). Even Auro will surpass Imax with the implementation of 21 channels. Add to that the point source nature of placement and the eq Imax uses which emphasises highs and Imax sound doesn't seem that special, rather fatigue inducing.

while IMAX-Laser is discrete 12-channel and not object based, it still delivered a damn impressive aural experience of 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' - maybe it was the theater, but the sound levels at Udvar Hazy are better calibrated, than say AMC Tysons, which is IMAX-Digital and plays back their features way too loud - 'Transformers 4' was obscenely loud, it actually gave me a headache.

Originally Posted by Spike M.

The problem with Atmos is they don't have a speaker standard. Short of having an awful projection staff that mucks everything up (which does happen), every IMAX sounds the same within realistic proportions, because every theater is getting the same equipment. Obviously that isn't necessarily true once you hit the bigger theaters, but even then they're strictly regulated.

The one Atmos experience I've had was dreadful (Klipsch speakers w/ Crown amps), and didn't even come close to replicating the audio quality of my Interstellar IMAX experience. I'm sure if an Atmos theater uses like... Meyer sound equipment and is in a great acoustic environment it'll rival the best of IMAX sound there is, but that's few and far between.

out of curiousity - what Atmos mix didn't wow you?

Originally Posted by Spike M.

I should add that in my experience, for whatever reason, the big boy IMAX theater's sound quality is an enormous improvement from converted theaters. Having seen Interstellar in two converted IMAX's as well as a 15/70 theater, the 15/70 theater was hitting frequencies that were just non-existent in the converts.

Even so, the digital IMAX's were a significant improvement in both clarity and power over my Atmos experience (Empirical Theater, Portland). The only rival I've had to IMAX's audio is Meyer's systems. I'm itching to get to one of their Atmos locations.

My biggest compliment to IMAX's sound is that after 5 years of seeing virtually every big blockbuster at one of their theaters, I've only needed to ask them to crank up the volume twice. One of my biggest frustrations about going to the movies is how little attention they pay to proper volume levels. With IMAX I rarely need to stress about needing to run out 5 minutes into the movie to ask a manager to turn the volume up (I needed to with Mad Max today, and it was annoying as hell).

hah - as I noted before - consider yourself lucky - the best IMAX-Digital screen in the Washington DC area is AMC Tyson's as it's three stories tall - the tallest. It's major downfall is the playback volume setting, it's unacceptable in it's near ear splitting loudness.

~

in terms of 'Jurassic World's AR - on the Udvar Hazy 1.43 screen - it looked to be at it's noted 2.00:1 framing.

[Trigen]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

This is true. IMAX has a set standard. Atmos is flexible, but a theater could have as little as 5.1 and advertise itself as an Atmos theater. >_<

Do you have links for that? As far as I am aware, the introduction of DTS:X and its variable speaker placement presents (cinemas placing minimum number of speakers) that problem of misleading marketing. However, for Atmos it does require the rear and top channels.


About Imax having standardized sound reproduction; the last movies I watched (in Imax) were The Expendables 3 and an Imax documentary, and the movie was really loud (had to use my earplugs), whereas the documentary was at a decent level. This was at Imax Auckland and both were in the same room, so room acoustics were not to blame for that. I was also informed by the manager that the levels were as prescribed by Imax.

On the other hand, there is an ex-Imax operated by Cineplex in Brisbane (refitted with 6.1 using arrays for side and rear and still having the 1.43AR screen) and that has one of the worst sound presentation I have ever heard. The highs are piercing and the low frequency is non existent (45hz rolloff at low levels). Transformers was painful to sit through and I had my fingers in my ears for most of the movie. The Imax closed down in 2002?, so I don't know how that sounded, nor have I been to Sydney and Melbourne Imax (I might for Jurassic World though).



I hate the recent trend that loud = good sound reproduction, but for a generation growing up listening to ipod earplugs, everything sounds good.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Trigen

On the other hand, there is an ex-Imax operated by Cineplex in Brisbane (refitted with 6.1 using arrays for side and rear and still having the 1.43AR screen) and that has one of the worst sound presentation I have ever heard. The highs are piercing and the low frequency is non existent (45hz rolloff at low levels).

That is the problem right there; it is no longer operated by IMAX.

[Trigen]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

That is the problem right there; it is no longer operated by IMAX.

I know. I stopped visiting the theatre. The irony is that the cinema is mostly packed, yet Imax closed because it was unprofitable.

I don't pan Imax, it is a really great experience when the picture and audio are done right. Maybe the 12 channel will stop them driving the speakers so hard and allow the sound to breathe.


Are the 12 channel installations using the same speakers/drivers or have they changed?

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Trigen

Are the 12 channel installations using the same speakers/drivers or have they changed?

I think they changed out everything.

Check out the Bob Bullock IMAX in Austin, TX, which converted from 15/70 to dual-2K projectors. They also swapped out all the sound gear.

http://www.thestoryoftexas.com/visit/see-films/imax

[jscoggins]

Btw, in reference to the DMR process, I don't know why filmmakers automatically agree to it. For Skyfall, Roger Deakins tested it and asked IMAX to back off. Therefore, the picture was essentially untouched and looked fantastic.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Btw, in reference to the DMR process, I don't know why filmmakers automatically agree to it. For Skyfall, Roger Deakins tested it and asked IMAX to back off. Therefore, the picture was essentially untouched and looked fantastic.

Depends on how involved the filmmaker gets, I think. DMR doesn't mean it'll automatically look like crap, it relies on how much or how little processing is applied. The edge halos on Ghost Protocol in 15/70 were quite blatant, as was the DNR on Star Trek Into Darkness (which does still look a touch processed even on BD, to be fair), whereas the last two Nolan flicks I've seen in 15/70 had little of either, and Catching Fire looked fabulous too.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Trigen

Do you have links for that? As far as I am aware, the introduction of DTS:X and its variable speaker placement presents (cinemas placing minimum number of speakers) that problem of misleading marketing. However, for Atmos it does require the rear and top channels.


About Imax having standardized sound reproduction; the last movies I watched (in Imax) were The Expendables 3 and an Imax documentary, and the movie was really loud (had to use my earplugs), whereas the documentary was at a decent level. This was at Imax Auckland and both were in the same room, so room acoustics were not to blame for that. I was also informed by the manager that the levels were as prescribed by Imax.

On the other hand, there is an ex-Imax operated by Cineplex in Brisbane (refitted with 6.1 using arrays for side and rear and still having the 1.43AR screen) and that has one of the worst sound presentation I have ever heard. The highs are piercing and the low frequency is non existent (45hz rolloff at low levels). Transformers was painful to sit through and I had my fingers in my ears for most of the movie. The Imax closed down in 2002?, so I don't know how that sounded, nor have I been to Sydney and Melbourne Imax (I might for Jurassic World though).



I hate the recent trend that loud = good sound reproduction, but for a generation growing up listening to ipod earplugs, everything sounds good.

exactly.

I had to put fingers in my ears during Transformers 4 (IMAX-D)

this "loud=good" extends to even the other large format theaters - 'A Good Day to Die Hard' was by the loudest sloppiest Dolby Atmos mix I've ever heard. Dolby Atmos on the ETX screen here at AMC Tysons tends to always be on the loud side; the Atmos system over at the Arclight Bethesda (screen 6) is better calibrated and less bombasticly loud.

'The Expendables 2' (lossless DCP audio) even in the standard theater at AMC Tysons was so loud it actually gave me a migrane (that's a rarity).

Originally Posted by jscoggins

I think they changed out everything.

Check out the Bob Bullock IMAX in Austin, TX, which converted from 15/70 to dual-2K projectors. They also swapped out all the sound gear.

http://www.thestoryoftexas.com/visit/see-films/imax

that's unfortunate, the museum should have waited for the laser system.