• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

State of movie theaters: mini rant.

xr100

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
518
Likes
237
Location
London, UK
I have the Tampa Theater now, built in 1926.

It's a bit strange, some surreal mediterranean cityscape surrounds the stage and decorates the sidewalls. Has a domed ceiling.

I think you'll find it's called an "atmospheric" design (faux sky ceiling!)

Here in London, the last full-on "old school" cinema, with large balcony (circle) and stalls that still predominantly operates as a cinema--i.e. hasn't been repurposed, had its main auditorium subdivided, or even demolished--is the Odeon Leicester Square.*

It is a huge problem to get these old "theatre-style" auditoria up to the expectations of today's patrons--for one, the acoustics are bad to the point of flutter/slap echoes yielding very poor dialogue intelligibility.

Just over a year ago the Odeon Leicester Square re-opened following a refurbishment said to cost between £10-15m, with the main auditorium** completely overhauled and upgraded with a Dolby Cinema system. For this, the stage end of the auditorium now has--as with any modern cinema auditorium--significant acoustic absorption hidden behind fabric false walls/ceiling, all-recliner seating in the stalls and the first few rows of the circle, and a "monster" Dolby Atmos sound system (Dolby SLS speakers)--16x18" drivers for the rear subwoofers alone!

The original 1930's "ribbed" and coved plasterwork above and to the sides of the circle has been retained (the rest of the original plasterwork was lost in the 1960's), as have (later recreated versions) of the original 1930's "flying ladies" sculptures on the sidewalls either side of the proscenium. The original organ (Compton) is still intact, too, albeit generally only raised up from under the stage on occasion.

Alas the screen is still too small for the auditorium's size, currently 47ft. wide for scope. (Projectors include dual Christie laser light source projection (Dolby Cinema) and 35/70mm film.)

Yes, you can get better picture and sound at home--but if you want an unforgettable and, dare I say "magical," experience, then for goodness sake, if you can, go to a proper cinema!

ASR33.png


ASR34.png


(* OK, strictly speaking, in the 2018 refurbishment, the last few rows of the stalls were removed and the rear wall moved forward, freeing up space for the stunningly revamped ground floor foyer and other facilities--but they had really bad sightlines, anyway.)
(** There are 4 other screens but these actually date from 1988, being located in a former alleyway. They are very small and not worth visiting.)
 
Last edited:

xr100

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
518
Likes
237
Location
London, UK
Don't leap too soon on the new TV. You need a minimum 8k so you can watch a 100 inch screen from 2.5 feet away.

Min. distance (front row) for an IMAX auditorium is 0.35x screen width from the screen.

Mix it with the latest Dolby Auro-XXSX 29.4 channel surround decoding. Get that real immersive experience. Then you'll be all set to watch the latest Marvel super spectacular release. A graphic novel adaptation of the Gender Infinity series story lines. […]

Or Blade Runner 2049... complete with "immersive" sounds out of a Yamaha CS-80. :)
 
OP
Blumlein 88

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
Min. distance (front row) for an IMAX auditorium is 0.35x screen width from the screen.



Or Blade Runner 2049... complete with "immersive" sounds out of a Yamaha CS-80. :)
When I made that post Blade Runner 2049 wasn't out yet. I do have a very good Imax 45 minutes from me, and those have always been good experiences. I do have to sit very near the center close to the projector or they will give me a headache however. I saw the previous Star Wars movie at the Imax. Haven't seen the current one yet.

I do remember seeing Clint Eastwood's "Bird" at a good theater. I complained a bit about how dark it was, but that was how Eastwood made the movie. The previews were fine.
 

GeorgeWalk

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
469
Likes
791
Went to see "1917" at a Dolby theater last week. Great movie and the Dolby video and audio really worked well. The movie has some night scenes lit by flares. The play between the utra-bright white from the flares and the hard-edged black shadows was stunning.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,198
Likes
16,981
Location
Riverview FL
Don't leap too soon on the new TV. You need a minimum 8k so you can watch a 100 inch screen from 2.5 feet away.

Christmased myself a Samsung Q70 series 75". It's only a 4k,

6" between it and the MartinLogans on each side. Currently 44" out from the wall behind.

Bought a fancy wall mount, extension, tilt, move side to side, rotate vertically (left right), rotate to level, but built a simple mount for it onto the back of the steel rack (using 1 inch angle steel), so the TV floats above the rack, and can extend out a little in front of it if I'm brave. The ability to rotate horizontally allows access to the back of the rack, otherwise I'd have to hire Thin Man to swap cables.

1579579759021.png
 
Last edited:

xr100

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
518
Likes
237
Location
London, UK
When I made that post Blade Runner 2049 wasn't out yet.

The post I quoted was from August 2019, so actually it was. :) But it doesn't really matter. What I meant was that there are some full-scale films of artistic merit that really deserve to be watched in a good cinema. I saw Blade Runner 2049 ~87ft. wide IMAX* screen, and it was absolutely stunning.

(*IMAX's "GT" dual laser light source system.)

I do have a very good Imax 45 minutes from me, and those have always been good experiences. I do have to sit very near the center close to the projector or they will give me a headache however.

The back row of an IMAX should be no more than 1x screen width away from the screen. The "classic" IMAX geometry is set out in an old SMPTE paper. (Albeit most IMAX venues are now 1.9:1 from 1.43:1--the easiest thing to consider is distance from screen related to screen width than bother with the horizontal or vertical viewing angles, or vertical position of seating relative to the screen, etc.)

IMAX auditorium geometry is set out again in more recent patents--but basically, "classic" institutional-type venues (the ones that once or still have 15/70 GT projection; mostly museums and the like) should conform, as should new build digital sites. Conversions of existing auditoria basically involve raising up the ceiling at the screen end and moving the screen forward, eliminating some of the rows at the front.

In some cases of conversions, going "all the way" isn't possible and so the result is non-conformance to the IMAX standards. The most obvious example is Los Angeles' Chinese Theater. Despite digging down below the existing floor, the screen (90ft.+ wide) does not actually have quite enough height for 1.9:1 ratio. I think the back of the auditorium must be about 2x screen width from the screen. Still, it allowed for the "original" interior to be left intact.

OTOH, London's Empire (now Cineworld) Leicester Square, much to the chagrin of those who loved the stunning old 1962 "modernist" auditorium, by comparison, had a conventional (in form) conversion with the ceiling raised and the screen moved forward. The screen is still only 1.9:1 (even though the dual GT laser projectors used can fill a 1.43:1 screen)--it would be sticking out of the roof if it was higher, and there's a casino underneath--but otherwise it's essentially a "textbook" IMAX auditorium. (Albeit very wide so the some of the side seats are not usable.)

ASR36.png


Anyway, back to the point--so if I'm understanding what you've written correctly and you prefer to sit right at the back of a "conformant" IMAX auditorium, it would be a similar relative distance to a typical seating position in a modern ("wall-to-wall" screen, stadium seating) multiplex--i.e. perhaps 1.5x screen width from screen to last row, 2/3rds back being be a typical choice of seat.

Personally, in an IMAX, I like to sit about in the centre of a row that's about halfway between front and back rows, maybe 0.6x screen width away from the screen or so. That seems to be a good sweet spot for sound (about where the side speakers are positioned if the auditorium has IMAX's 12 channel system, as those with laser light source projection do)--and the picture is very immersive without discomfort--a good position vertically as well rather than "looking up" at the screen.

(I did actually sit in the second row of in the Leicester Square IMAX once, namely for "Dunkirk." Really bad idea--for one, it turned out that the film had a very "loud" mix--and my ears were literally popping at times! It was also impossibly uncomfortable to look up at the screen that was also, at that distance, absolutely overwhelming in size.)

As a more practical matter for most, more recently IMAX have rolled out their "COLA" (Commerical Laser) system. It's a single projector laser light source projection system (fills 1.9:1 "maximum," 1.43:1 not supported.) There are a handful of new build multiplexes in the UK featuring the system, screen width 70ft. or so. Basically, it's a fantastic time for high quality "large format" sized screens--nothing like the old multiplexes with shoddy 35mm projection and so on. :)

Back to the viewing distance/resolution business--the design of "old" (non-IMAX) cinemas were based on putting the audience far enough away from the screen so as to render the artifacts of 35mm projection to be not overly distracting--and these date back to, IIRC, the 1950's, yet are still in use today.

For a truly "immersive" visual experience at home, better not sit 10ft. away from that new 75" TV--that's getting on for more than 2 screen widths away from the screen. ;-)

BTW, the IMAX format is "supposed" to make you feel a bit, if you will, disoriented--that's the idea of filling the peripheral visual field, where our brains "look" for motion.

I saw the previous Star Wars movie at the Imax. Haven't seen the current one yet.

I ended up seeing all three sequels for the first time at a triple-bill screening in a new-build IMAX with the "COLA" projection system. Absolutely exhausted by the end!

I'm not into all the details of the Star Wars "universe" so I just took them as they came. I thought the first two were OK. The third was terrible and cringe-worthy. EDIT: That was rather thoughtlessly phrased. :-( My apologies.
 
Last edited:

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,068
Likes
16,598
Location
Central Fl
I'm not into all the details of the Star Wars "universe" so I just took them as they came. I thought the first two were OK. The third was terrible and cringe-worthy.
I've no idea what gave you such a negative response to Star Wars - Rise of Skywalker, I saw it at the local IMax about 2 weeks ago and came away thrilled. The technical work on the filming was IMO excellent, as was the soundtrack. I'm very anxious to see it in 4k/Atmos on my HT when it's released to compare the with what I experienced at the theater. We shall see.
YMMV
 

xr100

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
518
Likes
237
Location
London, UK
I've no idea what gave you such a negative response to Star Wars - Rise of Skywalker, I saw it at the local IMax about 2 weeks ago and came away thrilled. The technical work on the filming was IMO excellent, as was the soundtrack. I'm very anxious to see it in 4k/Atmos on my HT when it's released to compare the with what I experienced at the theater. We shall see.

I'm glad, for you, it was enjoyable. Hope you have a great experience watching it on your HT.

The trilogy has had, it might be said, increasingly mixed responses--some of which are related to aspects of Star Wars "lore" that I am simply not familiar with. As a piece of storytelling I wasn't satisfied. But in general my opinion (which, let's face it, in the context of an $1bn+ grossing film counts for nothing) should, at best, be taken with 10 tonnes of salt, as in a way, with all things Star Wars, I don't really know what I'm talking about--LOL. Added to which, the screening of the third sequel started around midnight...

I had a great time attending the triple-bill though, and the first two sequels were nothing if not a blast. :)

(I've modified my previous post with a strike-through and apology.)
 
Last edited:
OP
Blumlein 88

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
The post I quoted was from August 2019, so actually it was. :) But it doesn't really matter. What I meant was that there are some full-scale films of artistic merit that really deserve to be watched in a good cinema. I saw Blade Runner 2049 ~87ft. wide IMAX* screen, and it was absolutely stunning.

(*IMAX's "GT" dual laser light source system.)



The back row of an IMAX should be no more than 1x screen width away from the screen. The "classic" IMAX geometry is set out in an old SMPTE paper. (Albeit most IMAX venues are now 1.9:1 from 1.43:1--the easiest thing to consider is distance from screen related to screen width than bother with the horizontal or vertical viewing angles, or vertical position of seating relative to the screen, etc.)

IMAX auditorium geometry is set out again in more recent patents--but basically, "classic" institutional-type venues (the ones that once or still have 15/70 GT projection; mostly museums and the like) should conform, as should new build digital sites. Conversions of existing auditoria basically involve raising up the ceiling at the screen end and moving the screen forward, eliminating some of the rows at the front.

In some cases of conversions, going "all the way" isn't possible and so the result is non-conformance to the IMAX standards. The most obvious example is Los Angeles' Chinese Theater. Despite digging down below the existing floor, the screen (90ft.+ wide) does not actually have quite enough height for 1.9:1 ratio. I think the back of the auditorium must be about 2x screen width from the screen. Still, it allowed for the "original" interior to be left intact.

OTOH, London's Empire (now Cineworld) Leicester Square, much to the chagrin of those who loved the stunning old 1962 "modernist" auditorium, by comparison, had a conventional (in form) conversion with the ceiling raised and the screen moved forward. The screen is still only 1.9:1 (even though the dual GT laser projectors used can fill a 1.43:1 screen)--it would be sticking out of the roof if it was higher, and there's a casino underneath--but otherwise it's essentially a "textbook" IMAX auditorium. (Albeit very wide so the some of the side seats are not usable.)

View attachment 46801

Anyway, back to the point--so if I'm understanding what you've written correctly and you prefer to sit right at the back of a "conformant" IMAX auditorium, it would be a similar relative distance to a typical seating position in a modern ("wall-to-wall" screen, stadium seating) multiplex--i.e. perhaps 1.5x screen width from screen to last row, 2/3rds back being be a typical choice of seat.

Personally, in an IMAX, I like to sit about in the centre of a row that's about halfway between front and back rows, maybe 0.6x screen width away from the screen or so. That seems to be a good sweet spot for sound (about where the side speakers are positioned if the auditorium has IMAX's 12 channel system, as those with laser light source projection do)--and the picture is very immersive without discomfort--a good position vertically as well rather than "looking up" at the screen.

(I did actually sit in the second row of in the Leicester Square IMAX once, namely for "Dunkirk." Really bad idea--for one, it turned out that the film had a very "loud" mix--and my ears were literally popping at times! It was also impossibly uncomfortable to look up at the screen that was also, at that distance, absolutely overwhelming in size.)

As a more practical matter for most, more recently IMAX have rolled out their "COLA" (Commerical Laser) system. It's a single projector laser light source projection system (fills 1.9:1 "maximum," 1.43:1 not supported.) There are a handful of new build multiplexes in the UK featuring the system, screen width 70ft. or so. Basically, it's a fantastic time for high quality "large format" sized screens--nothing like the old multiplexes with shoddy 35mm projection and so on. :)

Back to the viewing distance/resolution business--the design of "old" (non-IMAX) cinemas were based on putting the audience far enough away from the screen so as to render the artifacts of 35mm projection to be not overly distracting--and these date back to, IIRC, the 1950's, yet are still in use today.

For a truly "immersive" visual experience at home, better not sit 10ft. away from that new 75" TV--that's getting on for more than 2 screen widths away from the screen. ;-)

BTW, the IMAX format is "supposed" to make you feel a bit, if you will, disoriented--that's the idea of filling the peripheral visual field, where our brains "look" for motion.



I ended up seeing all three sequels for the first time at a triple-bill screening in a new-build IMAX with the "COLA" projection system. Absolutely exhausted by the end!

I'm not into all the details of the Star Wars "universe" so I just took them as they came. I thought the first two were OK. The third was terrible and cringe-worthy. EDIT: That was rather thoughtlessly phrased. :-( My apologies.
I've been to three Imax theaters at different times. All were purpose built from the ground up to be an Imax. Two are over a decade old, and the one nearest me is I think 4 years old. I initially tried sitting midway, but found sitting near the projector somehow worked better for me. I'm not sure why I'm somewhat sensitive to this. It is the peripheral field that bothers me when I sit elsewhere. It seems very unnatural, while sitting near the projector doesn't or does so much less. Not sure I see why it should be disorienting seems like a bad aim to me.
 

xr100

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
518
Likes
237
Location
London, UK
I've been to three Imax theaters at different times. All were purpose built from the ground up to be an Imax. Two are over a decade old, and the one nearest me is I think 4 years old. I initially tried sitting midway, but found sitting near the projector somehow worked better for me. I'm not sure why I'm somewhat sensitive to this. It is the peripheral field that bothers me when I sit elsewhere.

Not everyone likes it and some just find IMAX overwhelming, even seated far further towards the back than I would. After the Empire Leicester Square I mentioned in the previous post was converted to IMAX, one person I communicated with went there once, found the experience very uncomfortable, and said they would never go there again!

It seems very unnatural, while sitting near the projector doesn't or does so much less. Not sure I see why it should be disorienting seems like a bad aim to me.

It's a "feature" as well as a "bug." Or is that a "bug" rather than a "feature?"

It was well known "back in the day" that when making an IMAX documentary that it was necessary to keep the format in mind when filming, being very careful, avoiding fast pans and so on--although it can be a "feature" if sparingly used for effect. Besides which, the weight and bulk of a 15perf 65mm IMAX camera meant that one could hardly go running around handheld. Basically, IMAX demanded its own cinematic "dialect" of sorts.

In the case of "Hollywood" feature films that are "repurposed" for IMAX, then who knows? IMAX say that they work with filmmakers, but...

Obviously Christopher Nolan and others have specifically shot for the format. Nolan uses 15perf 65mm IMAX cameras but others have shot digitally as well. For example, the "full height" parts of "Mission Impossible: Fallout," were shot digitally on 8K Panavision cameras and look fantastic. (The rest was shot on 35mm and... well, let's just say it doesn't match that quality.) Aside from the merits or otherwise of the movie in general, if you haven't seen it, the "IMAX" sections of it are well worth checking out, with stunning aerial shots of a mountainous landscape. Can't remember if it's too "disorienting" (for want of a better word) but in the cinema it felt very "IMAX-y" to me, reminiscent of the shot-on-and-for-IMAX documentaries.
 
Last edited:
OP
Blumlein 88

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
Yes I've seen a few shot for IMAX documentary films. Those do work much better to me. One I remember from long ago which has some beautiful Rocky mountain shots is the one about Lewis and Clark.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,068
Likes
16,598
Location
Central Fl
Yes I've seen a few shot for IMAX documentary films. Those do work much better to me. One I remember from long ago which has some beautiful Rocky mountain shots is the one about Lewis and Clark.
I've never seen a documentary, but is it possible that because it's a whole different genre of movie they don't run the soundtracks so loud? I've been being told to turn down the volume for 60+ years now :) but still find myself wincing from the painful levels at these movies. Don't mean to sound like an ole fuddy duddy but I honestly beleive they could tame the levels by 3-6 db easily and not lose any of the emotional impact that was the producers intent..
I've never found myself being impacted negatively in any way visually but most definitely from the sound levels.
 

xr100

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
518
Likes
237
Location
London, UK
I've never seen a documentary, but is it possible that because it's a whole different genre of movie they don't run the soundtracks so loud?

No. IMAX were once far ahead of everyone else with 6 channel uncompressed digital audio (on CD-ROM's sync'd to the film, like DTS.) IIRC their lossless digital system was in use before the 35mm digital formats. Their sound systems have long been able to hit ~120dB peak. (Of course that's just playback level. The specific "loudness" of a film's soundtrack, as in its use of the available headroom and spectral characteristics, etc., is another matter.)

In fact one of the features of IMAX Digital (by which I mean digital projection) systems is that the playback level should always be at "reference level." It can be turned down locally but it's supposed to be reset back if it's kept there. All IMAX Digital systems are monitored by IMAX's Network Operations Centre in Mississauga, Ontario.

But, hopefully IMAX's system specification, calibration (and daily auto recalibration) prevents badly aligned systems with harsh HF at high SPL's etc.

It is probably typical for most non-IMAX screens to run at under reference level, due to audience complaints etc. That is absolutely to be frowned upon--take earplugs if you don't like it! ;-)
 
Last edited:

direstraitsfan98

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
826
Likes
1,225
No. IMAX were once far ahead of everyone else with 6 channel uncompressed digital audio (on CD-ROM's sync'd to the film, like DTS.) IIRC their lossless digital system was in use before the 35mm digital formats. Their sound systems have long been able to hit ~120dB peak.

In fact one of the features of IMAX Digital systems is that the playback level should always be at "reference level." It can be turned down locally but it's supposed to be reset back if it's kept there. All IMAX Digital systems are monitored by IMAX's Network Operations Centre in Mississauga, Ontario.

But, hopefully IMAX's system specification, calibration (and daily auto recalibration) prevents badly aligned systems with harsh HF at high SPL's etc.

It is probably typical for most non-IMAX screens to run at under reference level, due to audience complaints etc. That is absolutely to be frowned upon--take earplugs if you don't like it! ;-)
Do you know anything about the IMAX screens located in Canada? I've been trying to find specific infos for ages to no avail.
 
OP
Blumlein 88

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050

Mnyb

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
2,638
Likes
3,599
Location
Sweden, Västerås
Well I think it’s akin to a loudness war with some blockbusters that are basically a 2 hour subwoofer massage :D

That said we have reference level for a good reason so it should be used otherwise the sound would not be rigth in the subtler moments and it is done rigth in many movies so it’s not all lost it’s frankly much better than most music recordings.
 

raif71

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
2,333
Likes
2,535
I haven't seen a 3D movie in a theater before....just some in my olde LG hdtv unit at home. So, is it worth it to see a 3D movie in a theater?
 
OP
Blumlein 88

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
I haven't seen a 3D movie in a theater before....just some in my olde LG hdtv unit at home. So, is it worth it to see a 3D movie in a theater?
Some of them yes. Some during the faddish times had scenes that were blatantly just a wow moment for 3D which is a bit bothersome.

Some I saw which I thought worth paying for in 3D, Avatar, Prometheus, and Abraham Lincoln-Vampire Hunter. The latter I thought was a terrible idea for a movie, but I saw it and thought it was splendid fun.

The main thing I didn't like about 3D from a few years ago is it gave very muted colors. That was particularly a shame for Avatar.
 

Newk Yuler

Active Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Messages
155
Likes
252
Or Blade Runner 2049... complete with "immersive" sounds out of a Yamaha CS-80. :)

Ana de Armas in that movie makes it magnificent on any screen you can actually see. She's apparently playing the new Bond girl, too.
 

direstraitsfan98

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
826
Likes
1,225
You can enter your city in Canada here and they show the closest ones even if that isn't very close.
https://www.imax.com/theatres


This lists all of them of which there are 50 in Canada.
https://lfexaminer.com/theaters/
I'm looking for technical details. I wanted to know which screens are to Iexact MAX spec, which ones are still able to show actual IMAX film, and many more. Mostly I want to know when or if more 70MM films will be played, like just normal 70MM IMAX films. I have never been the ontario musuem to see the super wide pano imax screen, but I don't think it's possible for them to show regular movies there.
 
Top Bottom