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

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

I don't know what IMAX theaters you're visiting, but you need to go to the Bob Bullock in Austin.

that's what's everyone is saying/raving about.

http://www.tourtexas.com/content.cfm?id=469

"In the Bullock Museum IMAX Theatre you can experience the thrill of the deep sea, the mysteries of outer space, the rush of racing horses, or the action of a Hollywood blockbuster on a six-story high screen with Digital Surround Sound from 44 speakers. A "Certified Giant Screen" cinema, it's the Biggest Screen in Texas!"

wowsers! okay now I have to check this out!!

The Henry Ford IMAX theater gets equal mention as well.
http://www.thehenryford.org/imax/about.aspx

[Dubstar]

interestingly, here's IMAX' primer of IMAX 'sound' and while it doesn't mention the height channel, it does talk about the two surround speakers and negates the wall-speaker array that is common in most theater's setup (so I'm not completely crazy):

http://www.imax.com/community/vault/...bo=all/page=1/

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

interestingly, here's IMAX' primer of IMAX 'sound' and while it doesn't mention the height channel, it does talk about the two surround speakers and negates the wall-speaker array that is common in most theater's setup (so I'm not completely crazy):

http://www.imax.com/community/vault/...bo=all/page=1/

Dubstar, I hope you realize that # of speakers is not the same as # of channels.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

Dubstar, I hope you realize that # of speakers is not the same as # of channels.

oh definitely, I just don't want people to think that just because a theater setup whether it's an IMAX screen or any of the specialty screens has X amount of speakers means it's that many discrete channels of sound - it isn't. All the processors are doing is taking the core 5.1 or 7.1 audio cues and matrixing the sound to the number of speakers.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

oh definitely, I just don't want people to think that just because a theater setup whether it's an IMAX screen or any of the specialty screens has X amount of speakers means it's that many discrete channels of sound - it isn't. All the processors are doing is taking the core 5.1 or 7.1 audio cues and matrixing the sound to the number of speakers.

Yes. It's possible to have mono (1 channel) with 100 speakers. You were using the words "speakers" and "channels" a bit loosely, perhaps interchangeably.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

Yes. It's possible to have mono (1 channel) with 100 speakers. You were using the words "speakers" and "channels" a bit loosely, perhaps interchangeably.

was I?, oops... sorry.

[THXGuru]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

interestingly, here's IMAX' primer of IMAX 'sound' and while it doesn't mention the height channel, it does talk about the two surround speakers and negates the wall-speaker array that is common in most theater's setup (so I'm not completely crazy):

http://www.imax.com/community/vault/...bo=all/page=1/

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

Dubstar, I hope you realize that # of speakers is not the same as # of channels.

I don't like the IMAX surround speaker set up, I think it is worse than a regular surround theatre. You can't hear anything from the rears.

[Geoff D]

There was a bit of back-and-forth earlier in this thread about the ratio of the IMAX footage in Star Trek Into Darkness. I maintained that it was full height 1.44, which the BFI IMAX backed me up on, while others claimed it was 1.66, which was later supported by an article about the VFX work which said that they used that ratio.

Well, American Cinematographer have put up an excerpt of their interview with DoP Dan Mindel, where it is stated quite unequivocally that the IMAX scenes were masked at 1.66. I never thought I'd become one of those people who imagine that their IMAX screen is being filled, but that day has come to pass. If you'll excuse me, I've got a hat to eat.

Originally Posted by The ASC

According to A-camera 1st AC Serge Nofield, one of the challenges of moving between the two formats was working in the different aspect ratios. “In an effort to bridge that difference, we didn’t use the entire [1.43:1] Imax negative — we masked it to achieve a ratio of 1.66:1,” he says. “When viewed in an Imax theater, the movie will shift from 2.40:1 to 1.66:1.”

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

There was a bit of back-and-forth earlier in this thread about the ratio of the IMAX footage in Star Trek Into Darkness. I maintained that it was full height 1.44, which the BFI IMAX backed me up on, while others claimed it was 1.66, which was later supported by an article about the VFX work which said that they used that ratio.

Well, American Cinematographer have put up an excerpt of their interview with DoP Dan Mindel, where it is stated quite unequivocally that the IMAX scenes were masked at 1.66. I never thought I'd become one of those people who imagine that their IMAX screen is being filled, but that day has come to pass. If you'll excuse me, I've got a hat to eat.

True. But that other guy was being rude about it.

[Geoff D]

Well, he was right and I was wrong. The Lipizzaners are from Spain, not Portugal.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Well, he was right and I was wrong. The Lipizzaners are from Spain, not Portugal.

I don't care. He didn't have to be a child about it.

[Eric The Duke]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

I don't care. He didn't have to be a child about it.

LOL. You accused me of lying that it wasn't 1.44 ratio and you are saying I was being childish? Really?

[Eric The Duke]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

There was a bit of back-and-forth earlier in this thread about the ratio of the IMAX footage in Star Trek Into Darkness. I maintained that it was full height 1.44, which the BFI IMAX backed me up on, while others claimed it was 1.66, which was later supported by an article about the VFX work which said that they used that ratio.

Well, American Cinematographer have put up an excerpt of their interview with DoP Dan Mindel, where it is stated quite unequivocally that the IMAX scenes were masked at 1.66. I never thought I'd become one of those people who imagine that their IMAX screen is being filled, but that day has come to pass. If you'll excuse me, I've got a hat to eat.

Thanks for posting that info. I had no problem with you disagreeing with me in this thread because you were respectful and actually used logic instead of posting facepalm pictures.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

There was a bit of back-and-forth earlier in this thread about the ratio of the IMAX footage in Star Trek Into Darkness. I maintained that it was full height 1.44, which the BFI IMAX backed me up on, while others claimed it was 1.66, which was later supported by an article about the VFX work which said that they used that ratio.

Well, American Cinematographer have put up an excerpt of their interview with DoP Dan Mindel, where it is stated quite unequivocally that the IMAX scenes were masked at 1.66. I never thought I'd become one of those people who imagine that their IMAX screen is being filled, but that day has come to pass. If you'll excuse me, I've got a hat to eat.

digressing here, but I somehow missed this issue of American Cinematographer - damn it!

on topic: I went and saw 'Lone Ranger' on Bow Tie Reston's BTX screen and was immensly impressed - it's a wide auditorium and the (2.35 fixed) screen is not set far back, but the Christie projector's image and the 7.1 audio were top notch. Outside of the Angelika Mosaic theater and Reston both feature 7.1 in all it's auditoriums - so if a 7.1 movie isn't on one of the DC areas specialty screens, I know for certain I'll hear them as such at the aforementioned theaters.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Don't bother Eric, you're on my ignore list.

[Eric The Duke]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

Don't bother Eric, you're on my ignore list.

It must not be working considering you posting me a message.

[Poya]

Does pacific theater's XME (Extreme Movie Experience) count?

[Buscemi]

I've been to IMAX, IMAX Digital and ETX theatres.

The IMAX (about 45 minutes from my house) plays only documentaries (non 3-D) but has great projection. There is also a pre-show (that hasn't been updated since the theatre opened 20 years ago, as 70mm is still referenced) demonstrating the format.

The IMAX Digital theatre (about 10-15 minutes from me) is attached to a multiplex and was built for IMAX. The picture size isn't too bad and it's the probably the best place in the city to watch a movie.

The ETX theatre I've been to is the Barrywoods 24 in Kansas City. The auditorium has Dolby Atmos and a large screen but lacks up-down masking. As a result, I had to watch Taken 2 with black bars (at least it wasn't cropped though).

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Tickets are on sale now for Catching Fire in IMAX.

[DaFees]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

Tickets are on sale now for Catching Fire in IMAX.

I wish I could too BUT my IMAX theater isn't showing Catching Fire,