It's very probable that both these new screens will be Liemax--it fits the rollout programme.
Having said that, from my experience they will still be well worth the premium. The extra resolution and a bit more height when it kicks in is impressive, and I would definitely go for the digital IMAX version over a standard screening if there was a choice, and it was a film which justified it.
Proper 15/70 IMAX is a different beast. It's huge and it's analogue, complete with (as I found in Manchester Printworks) a bit of gate weave, flicker and chromatic aberration that reminds you that you are watching a stream of very big celluloid stills being hauled through a projector. It feels like it's only barely under control. And it's absolutely glorious. You are pinned into your seat by the sheer scale and detail it delivers. Like no other film experience I've had.
Just try to sit as far back as possible in a true IMAX theatre and somewhere nearer the middle centre rows in a digital IMAX setup and, for any doubters, you won't be disappointed.
It's certainly a fair bit bigger than the Digital IMAX screens at Uxbridge (41ft x 19ft) although still not nearly as big as the traditional IMAX screens at Manchester (86ft x 62ft) and London Waterloo (85ft x 66ft).
Real IMAX is incredible. We've only got one of those fake-imax screens in edinburgh, though, so we go through to the one at the glasgow science centre
The 3D system they use for the short documentary films they show is amazing, I wish feature films could use it- normal 3D doesn't do much for me at all. With the made-for-IMAX 3D the glasses are different- bigger and almost wraparound- and it really looks three dimensional, not just like separated- out layers. We went to see a short film about the hubble telescope and it was astonishing.
I would always choose IMAX over a normal screening if it were available. It's actually cheaper to see the hobbit at the glasgow science centre IMAX than at the cineworld here, if you include the cost of hiring the glasses...
I think it is because of the expense of it movies are expensive enough and adding £4.50 - £5 onto the price gets rid of the trade. It is not really viable in the current economic climate.
Saw I am Legend at an IMAX in New York - waaaaaay too much for me, though this is probably as much to do with being sat almost in the front row. Funnily enough one of the trailers was for a Rolling Stones concert and the size of the screen and the noise certainly made me feel like I was actually there and was kind of cool.
Watching the actual movie was so overwhelming I had to remove my glasses and watch the majority of the movie without them, for the first time ever, it was 'too much movie' for me
Definitely would recommend the experience, though not from the front row (plus it was stupidly expensive!)
I saw the new StarTrek movie on an IMAX screen - and hated it. It was far too big and the action so fast and blurry - it was hard to see what was going on.
Saw I am Legend at an IMAX in New York - waaaaaay too much for me, though this is probably as much to do with being sat almost in the front row. Funnily enough one of the trailers was for a Rolling Stones concert and the size of the screen and the noise certainly made me feel like I was actually there and was kind of cool.
Watching the actual movie was so overwhelming I had to remove my glasses and watch the majority of the movie without them, for the first time ever, it was 'too much movie' for me
Definitely would recommend the experience, though not from the front row (plus it was stupidly expensive!)
The closest I've sat to the front of an IMAX auditorium was for Superman Returns when I was sat about 6 rows from the front at Waterloo and it was a bit too close to take in the whole screen!
I always book seats in the back 3rd of the rows whenever I visit the IMAX nowadays, I don't know anyone who likes sitting near the front but suppose it would cost too much to build bigger auditoria with the seating slightly further away from the screen.
I saw the new StarTrek movie on an IMAX screen - and hated it. It was far too big and the action so fast and blurry - it was hard to see what was going on.
Much better on my 50inch plasma at home.
That it a problem with movies like Star Trek which weren't filmed on IMAX cameras and were instead upscaled with DMR, as blowing up footage intended for a 35mm cinema screen onto a much larger screen is a bit like watching a DVD on a 100inch plasma.
Getting to see footage filmed with IMAX cameras on an IMAX screen, such as in the last 2 Batman films, is an experience that no home cinema can quite match for picture quality though.
Is it tried that IMAX is licensed to only one cinema in an area? A member of staff at Southampton Odeon said they had it exclusive for the next ten years.
That it a problem with movies like Star Trek which weren't filmed on IMAX cameras and were instead upscaled with DMR, as blowing up footage intended for a 35mm cinema screen onto a much larger screen is a bit like watching a DVD on a 100inch plasma.
I guess that's one reason for its unpopularity then. If people get stung by a cheap imitation (like I appear to have been - I dont remember anywhere in the advert for the movie where it said "this isn't really an IMAX film" - and they didnt charge any less for it) - they will be less likely to go back.
Getting to see footage filmed with IMAX cameras on an IMAX screen, such as in the last 2 Batman films, is an experience that no home cinema can quite match for picture quality though.
Agreed. And when it's on a 15/70 IMAX, *all* home cinemas are left in the dust!
I guess that's one reason for its unpopularity then. If people get stung by a cheap imitation (like I appear to have been - I dont remember anywhere in the advert for the movie where it said "this isn't really an IMAX film" - and they didnt charge any less for it) - they will be less likely to go back.
Yes, this is a real danger. I guess there is effectively shortage of supply at the same time they are building up the (digital) IMAX venues. Or else people will become accustomed to the lesser experience as what IMAX offers and accept it anyway. Which may well be what they are hoping...:( Still, too soon to be pessimistic yet!
Edit: Saw Skyfall on an IMAX, and decided that while it was OK I'll not be bothering again unless it's filmed properly.
I guess that's one reason for its unpopularity then. If people get stung by a cheap imitation (like I appear to have been - I dont remember anywhere in the advert for the movie where it said "this isn't really an IMAX film" - and they didnt charge any less for it) - they will be less likely to go back.
Well you'll be glad to know that several scenes in the upcoming Star Trek Into The Darkness movie have been filmed with IMAX cameras, so it should be worth paying a little extra to watch in an IMAX theatre.
Hopefully it is only a matter of time before someone can devise a smaller and quieter IMAX camera which will allow film makers to shoot entire feature length movies in native IMAX format.
I guess that's one reason for its unpopularity then. If people get stung by a cheap imitation (like I appear to have been - I dont remember anywhere in the advert for the movie where it said "this isn't really an IMAX film" - and they didnt charge any less for it) - they will be less likely to go back.
I think it's more likely that in general people aren't that techy and aren't easily impressed.
I was talking to the staff at Cineworld in the O2 in London. They were saying that after the initial response of this is new, the vibrating D-Box isn't selling like it was. Most people think it's not that great and certainly not worth the extra money. Yes some people go for it, but most people when asked if they want it say no. They are more interested in the film than the box of tricks.
In my opinion IMAX whether true IMAX or fake IMAX is for many people just another gimmick and people aren't impressed by gimmicks. They can't make an average or good film anything more than what it is.
I think it's more likely that in general people aren't that techy and aren't easily impressed.
[...]
In my opinion IMAX whether true IMAX or fake IMAX is for many people just another gimmick and people aren't impressed by gimmicks. They can't make an average or good film anything more than what it is.
Well, to me a true IMAX sequence that opens out to 1.4:1 on a giant screen is far from a gimmick (unlike buzzing seats, which surely are) and more like a transcendent, quasi-religious experience! I agree it can't make bad film good, but I think you are underplaying its sensory impact as an extra dimension when the film *is* good. You don't have to be techy to appreciate this--in fact I can't see how you could miss it as it's so huge in every sense.
Vibrating seats are undoubtedly just a gimmick (liker smell-o-vision ) that most cinema goers would not bother paying extra for but higher quality footage (such as IMAX) projected onto bigger screens is surely a natural evolution for movies. Just as how the general public are purchasing ever larger televisions on which to watch HDTV content (provided by Sky / Virgin / Freeview / Blu-Ray / Netflix etc) as they can see with their own eyes that it looks better.
Christopher Nolan, Brad Bird and JJ Abrams are big fans of the IMAX format and (unlike most film makers) actually use IMAX cameras for the best possible image quality.
...I think IMAX is the best film format that was ever invented. It’s the gold standard and what any other technology has to match up to, but none have, in my opinion...
"We were so thrilled with the creative results of shooting IMAX for Mission: Impossible that we jumped at the chance to use the format for Star Trek," Abrams said. "All expectations were exceeded -- the action and resolution is insane at this scale. We cannot wait for audiences to see the crew of the Enterprise in a way they never have before."
The IMAX sequences were probably the only ones where I really had to have adequate time to really plan meticulously because they’re big cameras, they’re noisy and they’re cumbersome. But, the image quality you get from them is unparalleled, so I think it was worth the trouble.
Hopefully these movie making pioneers can help improve the IMAX cameras (or an equivalent technology) so that they can be used to film entire feature length movies and raise the standard for cinema just as 35mm did over a century ago. As with television technology coming on leaps and bounds in recent years, the movie industry needs to up their game so that going to the cinema has that 'wow factor' it once had when the public only had small SD televisions at home.
I saw 'Skyfall' in the BFI Waterloo IMAX a while back. Unfortunately, I had a front row seat - and the image just appeared to be too 'in your face'.
I did go back for a second time, this time at the back in one of the 'Premier seats'. Much better experience. You get to appreciate the big image taking up your peripheral vision more. The IMAX in London always seems pretty busy.
I do plan on viewing the new Star Trek film there.
I suppose that it is a good technology for cinema, in that it gets people out to them. It seems better than 3D to me. No light loss and with non 3D stuff you don't wear glasses. It does help to highlight the difference between viewing a film at home and at the cinema. It is all about the experience.
I went to see Skyfall in the new Cineworld Birmingham IMAX, and frankly I didn't think it was worth the extra money. The screen and picture quality wasn't that much better from my perspective. I have an unlimited card and still had to pay extra.
A quick question, do people prefer the dome shaped IMAX cinemas or the flat screened ones?
I've only been to a dome shaped IMAX once at a theme park many years ago and whilst it was good fun I don't think that I could watch an entire feature length movie like that!
I've seen quite a few films at the BFI IMAX, something like TDKR and Mission Impossible with actual filmed with IMAX cameras scenes are more impressive but some films like Tron Legacy converted some scenes to IMAX and it was just as good,
Well it looks like Sheffield's IMAX has proved to be a roaring success so Cineworld are upgrading some more screens, guess they'll all be Digital rather than full sized but that's still a cut above regular auditoriums at least. What with Odeon also rolling out more ISENSE screens with Dolby Atmos surround sound it will be interesting to see which system proves to be more successful in tempting people to leave their home cinemas and back to the multiplexes.
IMAX and UK cinema chain Cineworld Group have announced the expansion of their revenue sharing agreement with the addition of three IMAX theatre systems to be located in new construction projects including Telford and Broughton, near Chester.
The deal will bring Cineworld's total IMAX footprint to 11 theatres.
...Andrew Cripps, President, IMAX EMEA, said: "Cineworld is a valued partner and a true champion of the IMAX brand in the UK. Not only have they opened eight IMAX theatres in the span of 12 months, we've seen strong performances across these sites - including the Cineworld Sheffield IMAX theatre, which was ranked as the highest-grossing new IMAX site globally in 2012."
Comments
Having said that, from my experience they will still be well worth the premium. The extra resolution and a bit more height when it kicks in is impressive, and I would definitely go for the digital IMAX version over a standard screening if there was a choice, and it was a film which justified it.
Proper 15/70 IMAX is a different beast. It's huge and it's analogue, complete with (as I found in Manchester Printworks) a bit of gate weave, flicker and chromatic aberration that reminds you that you are watching a stream of very big celluloid stills being hauled through a projector. It feels like it's only barely under control. And it's absolutely glorious. You are pinned into your seat by the sheer scale and detail it delivers. Like no other film experience I've had.
Just try to sit as far back as possible in a true IMAX theatre and somewhere nearer the middle centre rows in a digital IMAX setup and, for any doubters, you won't be disappointed.
However I see that the recently opened IMAX screen at Nottingham Cineworld is 19m (62ft) wide by 9m (30ft) tall according to: BBC News - Work starts to install Nottingham's first Imax
Looks good judging by these photos: Photos: IMAX launch - Nottingham Culture - LeftLion.co.uk
Taking the total number of IMAX screens in the UK to 25: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_venues#U
I see that the Sheffield IMAX is claiming to be ".At 70ft x 39ft 5in, it is the second biggest digital IMAX screen in the world" - Movie goers are handed chance to be having it large - News - Sheffield Telegraph
It's certainly a fair bit bigger than the Digital IMAX screens at Uxbridge (41ft x 19ft) although still not nearly as big as the traditional IMAX screens at Manchester (86ft x 62ft) and London Waterloo (85ft x 66ft).
The 3D system they use for the short documentary films they show is amazing, I wish feature films could use it- normal 3D doesn't do much for me at all. With the made-for-IMAX 3D the glasses are different- bigger and almost wraparound- and it really looks three dimensional, not just like separated- out layers. We went to see a short film about the hubble telescope and it was astonishing.
I would always choose IMAX over a normal screening if it were available. It's actually cheaper to see the hobbit at the glasgow science centre IMAX than at the cineworld here, if you include the cost of hiring the glasses...
EDIT - Just realised this thread is from 2007.
Watching the actual movie was so overwhelming I had to remove my glasses and watch the majority of the movie without them, for the first time ever, it was 'too much movie' for me
Definitely would recommend the experience, though not from the front row (plus it was stupidly expensive!)
Much better on my 50inch plasma at home.
The closest I've sat to the front of an IMAX auditorium was for Superman Returns when I was sat about 6 rows from the front at Waterloo and it was a bit too close to take in the whole screen!
I always book seats in the back 3rd of the rows whenever I visit the IMAX nowadays, I don't know anyone who likes sitting near the front but suppose it would cost too much to build bigger auditoria with the seating slightly further away from the screen.
That it a problem with movies like Star Trek which weren't filmed on IMAX cameras and were instead upscaled with DMR, as blowing up footage intended for a 35mm cinema screen onto a much larger screen is a bit like watching a DVD on a 100inch plasma.
Getting to see footage filmed with IMAX cameras on an IMAX screen, such as in the last 2 Batman films, is an experience that no home cinema can quite match for picture quality though.
PJ
I guess that's one reason for its unpopularity then. If people get stung by a cheap imitation (like I appear to have been - I dont remember anywhere in the advert for the movie where it said "this isn't really an IMAX film" - and they didnt charge any less for it) - they will be less likely to go back.
Agreed. And when it's on a 15/70 IMAX, *all* home cinemas are left in the dust!
Yes, this is a real danger. I guess there is effectively shortage of supply at the same time they are building up the (digital) IMAX venues. Or else people will become accustomed to the lesser experience as what IMAX offers and accept it anyway. Which may well be what they are hoping...:( Still, too soon to be pessimistic yet!
Edit: Saw Skyfall on an IMAX, and decided that while it was OK I'll not be bothering again unless it's filmed properly.
Well you'll be glad to know that several scenes in the upcoming Star Trek Into The Darkness movie have been filmed with IMAX cameras, so it should be worth paying a little extra to watch in an IMAX theatre.
‘Star Trek’ Sequel Is Being Shot Partially On IMAX | /Film
Hopefully it is only a matter of time before someone can devise a smaller and quieter IMAX camera which will allow film makers to shoot entire feature length movies in native IMAX format.
Indeed :cool:
Although Samsung are trying to narrow the gap with their latest offering but I dread to think how much those Ultra HD (4K) OLED screens would cost!
Samsung's curved OLED TV provides an 'IMAX-like' experience | News | TechRadar
I think it's more likely that in general people aren't that techy and aren't easily impressed.
I was talking to the staff at Cineworld in the O2 in London. They were saying that after the initial response of this is new, the vibrating D-Box isn't selling like it was. Most people think it's not that great and certainly not worth the extra money. Yes some people go for it, but most people when asked if they want it say no. They are more interested in the film than the box of tricks.
In my opinion IMAX whether true IMAX or fake IMAX is for many people just another gimmick and people aren't impressed by gimmicks. They can't make an average or good film anything more than what it is.
Well, to me a true IMAX sequence that opens out to 1.4:1 on a giant screen is far from a gimmick (unlike buzzing seats, which surely are) and more like a transcendent, quasi-religious experience! I agree it can't make bad film good, but I think you are underplaying its sensory impact as an extra dimension when the film *is* good. You don't have to be techy to appreciate this--in fact I can't see how you could miss it as it's so huge in every sense.
Christopher Nolan, Brad Bird and JJ Abrams are big fans of the IMAX format and (unlike most film makers) actually use IMAX cameras for the best possible image quality.
Christopher Nolan Talks IMAX, 3D & CGI in Movies
J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Sequel Filming Scenes With IMAX Cameras - CinemaBlend.com
Brad Bird MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 4 GHOST PROTOCOL Interview | Collider
Hopefully these movie making pioneers can help improve the IMAX cameras (or an equivalent technology) so that they can be used to film entire feature length movies and raise the standard for cinema just as 35mm did over a century ago. As with television technology coming on leaps and bounds in recent years, the movie industry needs to up their game so that going to the cinema has that 'wow factor' it once had when the public only had small SD televisions at home.
I did go back for a second time, this time at the back in one of the 'Premier seats'. Much better experience. You get to appreciate the big image taking up your peripheral vision more. The IMAX in London always seems pretty busy.
I do plan on viewing the new Star Trek film there.
I suppose that it is a good technology for cinema, in that it gets people out to them. It seems better than 3D to me. No light loss and with non 3D stuff you don't wear glasses. It does help to highlight the difference between viewing a film at home and at the cinema. It is all about the experience.
I've only been to a dome shaped IMAX once at a theme park many years ago and whilst it was good fun I don't think that I could watch an entire feature length movie like that!
Cineworld and IMAX to add three new theatres across UK - Sharecast