Is anybody unconfortable with what Greg Foster of IMAX says about the IMAX Private Theatre? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 13 Old 07-12-2013, 06:29 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 70
To be more explicit, would you give a couple of million dollars to a guy who says that their "aspect ratio is bigger" (promotional video 00:20 on the home page of www.imaxprivatetheatre.com)? Now the video is there since at least a couple of months, and apparently NOBODY told them about it. Greg Foster is "Chairman and president".

Don't you find it astonishingly unprofessional, given how much they ask for it?
antoniobiz1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 13 Old 07-12-2013, 06:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Pining for the Tundra
Posts: 12,781
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Conceivably, if they where to have a streaming content service under their control, they could secure exclusive imax content. Like the dual aspect ratio batmans etc.etc.

So in that case they "would have the biggest aspect ratio".
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #3 of 13 Old 07-13-2013, 02:51 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Thank you for your reply, Cineramax. By the way, I admire your work.

But aspect ratio is just a number, and one that is decided when the content is created. So if the IMAX private thatre was to be "bigger", it would just be wrong, Besides, IMAX is famous for their SMALLER aspect ratio (1.43:1).

What he said is that they will show your 2.39:1 movie to a 3:1 or 4:1 or 5:1 aspect ratio (these are "bigger" aspect ratios). Obviously they will not do that. But how can a guy in charge of one of the most prominent companies in the business of movie exibition not have a grasp on such a basic concept? Declare it publicly? Manage not to be corrected from anyone at that company? And for MONTHS?

That's what I don't get.
antoniobiz1 is offline  
post #4 of 13 Old 10-10-2013, 08:25 PM
PF
AVS Special Member
 
PF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 3,316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Unfortunately, the IMAX Chairman isn't going to be headed out on job interviews anytime soon notwithstanding your objections to his qualifications. That's because you're confusing the aspect ratio arithmetic with the screen's actual surface area in a real world room configured for IMAX.

If I understand your posts correctly, you object to IMAX saying that their aspect ratios are bigger because Cinemascope aspect ratios like 2.40 are higher numbers than 1.43.

But the fact is, IMAX screens fill virtually the entire wall at the screen end of a theater room. A 2.40 screen on that same wall would have far LESS surface area than IMAX's wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling screens. A 2.40 screen would be equally wide, but not nearly as tall. A 2.76 screen for Ben Hur would have even less surface area even though 2.76 is a bigger number still.

So, IMAX's Chairman is correct. An IMAX Screen is bigger. 2.40 is a WIDER ratio, but it's neither wider nor bigger once the screen has reached the limits of the room boundaries in direct comparison to an IMAX screen wall. To the target audience that the Chairman is addressing - which I assure you is not us - his comment makes perfect sense.
PF is offline  
post #5 of 13 Old 10-18-2013, 05:39 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Thank you for your reply.

You understood my posts perfectly. However, last time I checked, a ratio was just that: a ratio. Wikipedia definition: "The aspect ratio of an image describes the proportional relationship between its width and its height". A proportional relationship, that's it. Nothing about filling screens.

So IMAX's Chairman is NOT correct. My 24'' samsung monitor has a 16:10 aspect ratio, which is the same as my 130 "Epson 705 HD projector, Same aspect ratio, completely different size. I feel a bit embarassed to explain this.

Anyway, you helped to answer my original question. Apparently I'm the only one who's uncomfortable with such a statement.

Take care.
antoniobiz1 is offline  
post #6 of 13 Old 10-24-2013, 06:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: brookeville, maryland, usa
Posts: 20,214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 606 Post(s)
Liked: 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by PF View Post

Unfortunately, the IMAX Chairman isn't going to be headed out on job interviews anytime soon notwithstanding your objections to his qualifications. That's because you're confusing the aspect ratio arithmetic with the screen's actual surface area in a real world room configured for IMAX.

If I understand your posts correctly, you object to IMAX saying that their aspect ratios are bigger because Cinemascope aspect ratios like 2.40 are higher numbers than 1.43.

But the fact is, IMAX screens fill virtually the entire wall at the screen end of a theater room. A 2.40 screen on that same wall would have far LESS surface area than IMAX's wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling screens. A 2.40 screen would be equally wide, but not nearly as tall. A 2.76 screen for Ben Hur would have even less surface area even though 2.76 is a bigger number still.

So, IMAX's Chairman is correct. An IMAX Screen is bigger. 2.40 is a WIDER ratio, but it's neither wider nor bigger once the screen has reached the limits of the room boundaries in direct comparison to an IMAX screen wall. To the target audience that the Chairman is addressing - which I assure you is not us - his comment makes perfect sense.

How insulting! What do you mean, not US? Maybe not you and certainly not me, but there are a few here that could do it without decreasing their net worth by double digit percentages. smile.gif

Mark Haflich
markhaflich@yahoo.com
call me at: 240 876 2536
mark haflich is offline  
post #7 of 13 Old 10-24-2013, 08:15 PM
PF
AVS Special Member
 
PF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 3,316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 14
You misunderstand. I don't pretend to know everyone's net worth. I was making a larger point.
PF is offline  
post #8 of 13 Old 10-25-2013, 01:06 AM
Newbie
 
onapthanh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Ha Noi
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

Obviously they will not do that. But how can a guy in charge of one of the most prominent companies in the business of movie exibition not have a grasp on such a basic concept? Declare it publicly? I understand your posts correctly, you object to IMAX saying that their aspect ratios are bigger because Cinemascope aspect ratios like 2.40 are higher numbers than 1.43. Now the video is there since at least a couple of months, and apparently NOBODY told them about it

onapthanh is offline  
post #9 of 13 Old 10-25-2013, 11:41 AM
Senior Member
 
m Robinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Redondo Beach, California
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 13
You gentlemen are getting hung up on a minor semantic thing. Imax has always followed their own model for screen size, proximity, angle of projection, and degree of audience envelopment. I do not think us tweakers here on AVS forum are the intended viewers for that promotional piece. There's no here, here, no smoking gun. It's horses for courses, either you want one or you do not. I'm technical, in the industry and utterly comfortable with what Mr. Foster says.

Mark Robinson
Vice President of Technology
Stewart Filmscreen

m Robinson is offline  
post #10 of 13 Old 10-25-2013, 05:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Pining for the Tundra
Posts: 12,781
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 84
Hi Mark,

I am equally as unperturbed as you are (and thanks to the original poster for the generous compliment). But me being Cubano could you explain the horses phrase in this context.?


Second what do you think they mean by Compond Curve Screen? Me being a Torus guy and all...



By the way I cannot under-emphasize my gratitude at the way your company saved my reputation during an installation in Moscow by DHL'ing (at call Guinness record speed) some missing screws (that likely were lost by one of the local subs hoisting the screen 70 floors up) that and the fact that the 5D screen is phenomenal.

I must admit going into the job I had serious reservations about it's polarity retention, and when we fired up the projector before I got to the site, there was a severe ghosting problem. So I had some reservations still. Well it turns out the ghosting was an oppo edid problem that forced 3d into some weird fr=quency generated double image of the Chrisitie projector.


Once the edid was spoofed to that of an Onkyo receiver, the Stewart 5D produced the most beautiful 3D blu ray image I could have ever conceived possible. Thanks Stewart!!!!!


And yes the 5D image appears to be white not silver.



Regards
CINERAMAX is offline  
post #11 of 13 Old 10-28-2013, 03:22 PM
Senior Member
 
m Robinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Redondo Beach, California
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Hey Peter,
"horses for courses" is my way of saying that the aspect ratio specified by Imax is tailored to the way they handle films in post production and they way they wish to execute immersion for the viewer. A ratio is a ratio, it's really all about where the viewer is located in proximity to the screen. I do not think these theatres will be using disc media sources.

My belief is that "compound curve" as used in this description is not the "compound curve" we speak of with the Torus units. It's is a single axis curve, section of a cylinder, with top and bottom members also being curved in a rising and falling arc from side to side, as seen by the viewer.

Happy to be of service.

Mark Robinson
Vice President of Technology
Stewart Filmscreen

m Robinson is offline  
post #12 of 13 Old 10-29-2013, 09:29 AM
PF
AVS Special Member
 
PF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 3,316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Actually, the system has HDMI inputs among the many ways to connect sources, so I would anticipate that Blu-ray and Kaleidescape will be very much employed, as will cable and satellite
PF is offline  
post #13 of 13 Old 10-29-2013, 11:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Pining for the Tundra
Posts: 12,781
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 84
I am familiar with them barco 4k's and I compared kaleidescape and dci on a 17 x 9.9' screen blu ray will look fantastic. I do not know about the multiimage server it might by a hair soft but bd will be crazy good.



By the way the screen was later relaced, by my staff that ugly crap was my hasty handy work:D
CINERAMAX is offline  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off