or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › The New Master List of BASS in Movies with Frequency Charts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The New Master List of BASS in Movies with Frequency Charts - Page 299

post #8941 of 16084
you got bd already??
post #8942 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitviper33 View Post

Here's an explanation of IMAX versus "liemax".

http://www.slashfilm.com/qa-imax-theatre-real-imax-liemax/

His list of theaters at the end is incomplete, as I have confirmed one real IMAX that is missing from the list. The map he links to notes the one I go to, so it may be a good source.

Thx for posting this, very interesting.. The two IMAX (one real one fake) theatres listed for Ottawa are correct smile.gif
post #8943 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flageborg View Post

Higher than this....for hours - no problem with frequencies below 100Hz




Confirmed by several bassoholics at our gathering... wink.gif



Read more about our gathering here...

http://avforum.no/forum/generell-info/68760-landstreff-avforum-takk-alle-som-bidro-flere-bilder-kommer-18.html

Thanks for the link but I don't the language.
post #8944 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by asere View Post

Thanks for the link but I don't the language.

My browser - Google Chrome which is THE best(fastest picture browser) - translates every foreign language - on my computers....
post #8945 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

How do you know the difference? I know the IMAX in buffalo sounds better than the IMAX in Albany and Whiteplains. The screen is bigger too! They all said laser calibrated.

The LieMAX are smaller screens, with only twin 2k projectors! I can easily see pixels from the back of the auditorium, regardless of the 'theoretical resolution'.

The real IMAX show off the film platen system behind glass, are MUCH bigger screens, and in my experience, have much better sound. Sadly, IMAX filmstock is expensive (and wears out), so I highly doubt more true IMAX theaters will ever be constructed. Not if the masses cannot tell the difference, and will pay extra to see it in LieMAX, thinking they are getting the same thing.

JSS
post #8946 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

How do you know the difference? I know the IMAX in buffalo sounds better than the IMAX in Albany and Whiteplains. The screen is bigger too! They all said laser calibrated.

If you're in a real IMAX Theater, you'll know.. You've never seen a screen like that. The layout of seats is also different, and the incline of top rows is much more steep than a traditional movie theater, from the ones I've been to anyways, more like the upper deck of a sports stadium..
post #8947 of 16084
A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to experience IMAX in Chicago with my friends.

How is this cinema compared to other IMAX?

post #8948 of 16084
Well, how big is the screen in Buffalo? The new one in Syracuse is 40 feet by 72 feet. They also have a dome IMAX but they never play movies in there, more museum stuff.
post #8949 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

Well, how big is the screen in Buffalo? The new one in Syracuse is 40 feet by 72 feet. They also have a dome IMAX but they never play movies in there, more museum stuff.

Lincoln square is 76 x 97 feet
post #8950 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWagstaff View Post

Lincoln square is 76 x 97 feet

Great, how many of the real IMAX theaters actually play movies nowadays?
post #8951 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

Great, how many of the real IMAX theaters actually play movies nowadays?
Here's the list
http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm#GA
post #8952 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitviper33 View Post

Here's an explanation of IMAX versus "liemax".

http://www.slashfilm.com/qa-imax-theatre-real-imax-liemax/

His list of theaters at the end is incomplete, as I have confirmed one real IMAX that is missing from the list. The map he links to notes the one I go to, so it may be a good source.

pitviper33,

Excellent Article - Thanks for sharing!
Hope all is well for you? By chance; are you busy building SEOS boxes yet?
post #8953 of 16084
We had a fantastic 3D experience in Chicago smile.gif
(NO popcorns flying around & smelling)

BUT - where are all the people? In their HomeTheaters?

post #8954 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuzed2 View Post

FWIW:

We recently saw the "Man of Steel" at a local IMAX cinema.
I hope what we experienced is NOT the norm for IMAX theaters >>> the volume was cranked to near the point of pain.
This is the 2nd time I have experienced excessive volume at an IMAX. Also the last time; in the future I will be bringing some form of hearing protection as a "just-in-case" IMAX measure next time.

However that said: I'm thinking the Man of Steel on Blu Ray has got the potential to be a 5.0 . I hope filtering does not come into play!
I saw the same movie at Imax in Indianapolis. The volume was very loud. I've seen other movies in the same theater but this was the first time it was that loud. I hope that aggressive soundtrack transfers over to bluray.
post #8955 of 16084
I love loud, as long as it is clean. So the 1570 IMAX theaters are the real ones? I can check one out in Rochester playing MOS. How do you know the screen size? The one in New York seems like the biggest with 600 seats. Maybe smaller theaters have smaller screens but with the same viewing experience because you are closer?
post #8956 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

I love loud, as long as it is clean. So the 1570 IMAX theaters are the real ones? I can check one out in Rochester playing MOS. How do you know the screen size? The one in New York seems like the biggest with 600 seats. Maybe smaller theaters have smaller screens but with the same viewing experience because you are closer?

practically all the real imaxes have different size screens. example of a few real ones and a few digital http://forum.videohelp.com/images/guides/p2035529/imax.jpg
post #8957 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitviper33 View Post

Here's an explanation of IMAX versus "liemax".

http://www.slashfilm.com/qa-imax-theatre-real-imax-liemax/

His list of theaters at the end is incomplete, as I have confirmed one real IMAX that is missing from the list. The map he links to notes the one I go to, so it may be a good source.

That list will naturally be incomplete as he stopped updating it 2 years ago. There are a few new IMAX theaters that are not on there as well.
post #8958 of 16084
Unfortunately, the only theater they put Atmos in in Atlanta is a digital IMAX. Go figure...
post #8959 of 16084
Wow, Olympus has fallen had some of the craziest LFE I've heard in a while. Had this playing a good deal above reference and holy siht. 5 stars. Great action, terrible writing. I was almost afraid for my subs I had it so loud.
Edited by notnyt - 7/3/13 at 5:11pm
post #8960 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambesolman View Post

Unfortunately, the only theater they put Atmos in in Atlanta is a digital IMAX. Go figure...

Did you try it already? If yes, how was it?
post #8961 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambesolman View Post

Unfortunately, the only theater they put Atmos in in Atlanta is a digital IMAX. Go figure...

I dont think there is an imax theater with a dolby atmos sound system afaik.

I also don't think there will be too many more new 70mm imax builds. Its simply cheaper and easier now with digital and can retrofit an existing theater. The 70mm video camera's, projectors, and film are all big and expensive. The size and weight of a 3d movie with a film for each eye is huge.
post #8962 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Kamp View Post

I dont think there is an imax theater with a dolby atmos sound system afaik.

I also don't think there will be too many more new 70mm imax builds. Its simply cheaper and easier now with digital and can retrofit an existing theater. The 70mm video camera's, projectors, and film are all big and expensive. The size and weight of a 3d movie with a film for each eye is huge.

Actually, film is such a robust, proven solution that it's SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive than digital. It's 1/2 to 1/4 the price, in fact.

The reason why the industry has gone digital is because of a huge subsidization push by the movie studios, in concert with the manufacturers (mostly Christie), to provide no interest loans and upgrade "rebates" to movie theater chains. Plus, studios claimed that the distribution chain would be cheaper, yet theaters still have to pay HUGE "deposits" on the digital, encrypted and watermarked prints. Digital didn't improve anything for anyone, except it eliminated more skilled technicians from the booth by removing the necessity of a knowledgeable kid in the booth.

The additional problem is, most of the first wave of upgrades in 2004-2008 were for the terrible 2k digital projectors @ $135k each (compared to $35k complete film systems). They will need to be replaced, since people are discerning over time, before their "maintenance" contract term of 15-20yrs is up.

Oddly, the studios only used this upgrade subsidy to lock theaters, mostly big chains who make almost no profits as it stands, into money-losing contractual situations for the next decade+. Why do you think the price of admission continues to go up a lot every year? If digital were cheaper, admission prices wouldn't rise, year on year, ever year.

Imax is a situation where film is always better, and likely will be for the foreseeable future.
post #8963 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by nube View Post

Actually, film is such a robust, proven solution that it's SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive than digital. It's 1/2 to 1/4 the price, in fact.

Film is way more expensive to print, process and ship.

Where do you get the idea that it is cheaper?

While I won't get into a debate about the quality of the image, which I think is fairly good, it is indefinitely repeatable quality without weave, scratches, etc... add to that the improved quality of the soundtrack, and I don't know I can agree with you there.

I absolutely lament the loss of qualified projectionists...

However, another place I think you are misled is you argument about why studios wanted to switch over..

It's because it's so much cheaper, and raises their profit... again, shipping a hard drive is vastly cheaper than sending 2 canisters of film per screen across the country... not to mention that the a single DCP can be played on multiple screens, and the savings multiply quickly... a KDM costs almost nothing to create and distribute, yet a single 35mm print of a feature can run upwards of $1500.00 depending on the type we're talking about..

Theaters make most of their money on concessions.... period. Add in the fact that IMAX takes a percentage of those profits, and you see the growth and development of the chains own technologies, like RPX at Regal or ETX and AMC.... they get to add to the ticket prices, without giving up a concession percentage to IMAX...

Regarding Atmos in IMAX, there will not be a marriage of the formats anytime soon.. the COO has gone on record as saying he doesn't think very highly of the tech.

The end of 35mm is upon us... the stuidos have said they won't be producing prints after this year (for the US market...)

While that may trickle into 2014, I think we can state with a good degree of certainty that will come to pass..

IMAX will transition to laser projection soon after, and we will have to see how long the film version of that format survives..
Edited by FilmMixer - 7/3/13 at 8:32pm
post #8964 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

Film is way more expensive to print, process and ship.

Where do you get the idea that it is cheaper?

This is true, but the savings have not been passed on to the exhibition side - see the deposit and sliding scale ticket structures that have not commensurately decreased. The savings in the distribution chain have not made it to exhibitors, not at all, even for the largest chains.

The savings are in the projection systems, as I noted in my other post. The exhibitors have, largely, been "encouraged" to upgrade to more expensive systems. I get these figures from direct comparisons of Christie Digital's 8 & 16 auditorium film system & digital system quotes.
post #8965 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambesolman View Post

Unfortunately, the only theater they put Atmos in in Atlanta is a digital IMAX. Go figure...

There is an Atmos install at the Regal Atlantic Station 16 (in the RPX theater.).

I suspect they will book Pacific Rim in there next week.
post #8966 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by cr136124 View Post

Did you try it already? If yes, how was it?
Not yet. For the most part I'm off til next Wednesday so I may.
post #8967 of 16084
I was speaking of imax only. The 70mm projectors, cameras, and film all more $$ and size than 35mm. Skilled projectionist to put together 70mm film and run/maintain projector, late night test runs... more $. If 70mm projector has issue during show, its done for that show. Cant fix or resplice film and start back up. The one i worked at had issues with static and dust bunnies running huge film through all day. Different 3d glasses at the time had to be washed between shows and expensive. That theater since i was there switched their imax to digital.

I agree with you on the digital change reasons and i really like the 70mm imax film. I dont think most would notice the difference and probably believe the picture to be better than their walshart lcd. Everytime the fam has a trip down to branson i make a trip to the real imax in appropriate auditorium on 70mm if possible.smile.gif
Edited by Luke Kamp - 7/3/13 at 9:03pm
post #8968 of 16084
Marc, I'll address the additional topics you mentioned after your original post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

While I won't get into a debate about the quality of the image, which I think is fairly good, it is indefinitely repeatable quality without weave, scratches, etc... add to that the improved quality of the soundtrack, and I don't know I can agree with you there.

I absolutely lament the loss of qualified projectionists...
There's really not much debate. The best 35mm digital systems reproduce images at least as good as film, and often better. There are a multitude of benefits to digital, but the first two generations of digital projectors didn't live up to the billing for most theaters, and they will have to upgrade long before the 25-35yr duty cycle of similar film projection systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

However, another place I think you are misled is you argument about why studios wanted to switch over..

It's because it's so much cheaper, and raises their profit... again, shipping a hard drive is vastly cheaper than sending 2 canisters of film per screen across the country... not to mention that the a single DCP can be played on multiple screens, and the savings multiply quickly... a KDM costs almost nothing to create and distribute, yet a single 35mm print of a feature can run upwards of $1500.00 depending on the type we're talking about..
Again, most of these savings have not been passed on to theaters. Perhaps the studios are making higher profits, but that brings up an interesting debate of its own.

On a $250M - $400M production, doesn't it seem odd that movie studios cannot resell props/property after purchasing/manufacturing them? The accounting departments are required, by law &/or SAP, to claim as a loss and waste (destroy) huge, absolutely IMMENSE dollar figures of fungible property. You and I both know a bunch of people in the production side of films, and the amount of waste is...shocking, eye-opening, and excessive.

Given that single facet of the waste in a movie's production, I can't find it palatable to congratulate the studios for finding ways to increase profits by decreasing the profits of the exhibitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

Theaters make most of their money on concessions.... period. Add in the fact that IMAX takes a percentage of those profits, and you see the growth and development of the chains own technologies, like RPX at Regal or ETX and AMC.... they get to add to the ticket prices, without giving up a concession percentage to IMAX...
All true, but the parts you missed are 1) the deposits required for the digital prints, no matter if they're delivered via encrypted DSL/satellite or via shipped HDDs and 2) the sliding scale of % the studio takes from ticket sales.

As for 1), studios haven't decreased the deposits (which end up paying the sliding scale profits on the take) since introducing digital, and the 2) sliding scales haven't gone in favor of exhibitors. They're the same or worse, with blockbusters still seeing most of the ticket prices going to the studios for the first 4wks. This is all while audiences have changed, and even the best movies have almost no audience traction in theaters past 3 weeks, and definitely not 4 weeks.

This means theaters basically make $0 from each ticket sold on the hottest movies. Thus, yes, they make money on concessions, but they keep raising ticket prices in hopes that they'll make something, someday, from those sliding scales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

The end of 35mm is upon us... the stuidos have said they won't be producing prints after this year (for the US market...)

While that may trickle into 2014, I think we can state with a good degree of certainty that will come to pass..
You and I have likely both been to a lot of industry conventions/conferences for the last couple of decades. The studios have been saying this exact quote for more than 20 years. Every year it comes closer to being reality, but it's simply not going to be this year or next. Still some 40%+ of theaters in the USA are film, and many of those are operated by small owners who cannot afford to upgrade to digital (or just built their theaters in the last 15 years and have not yet recouped their investment). Are the studios going to screw them over? Definitely not, nor should they.
Edited by nube - 7/3/13 at 9:04pm
post #8969 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Kamp View Post

I was speaking of imax only. The 70mm projectors, cameras, and film all more $$ and size than 35mm.

No offense, but the equipment & personnel required to project a film IMAX production is significantly less expensive, year on year AND total cost of ownership, than a commensurate digital solution. We're talking about 3-4x more expensive for the digital solution, and it's lower image quality.
post #8970 of 16084
Quote:
Originally Posted by nube View Post

No offense, but the equipment & personnel required to project a film IMAX production is significantly less expensive, year on year AND total cost of ownership, than a commensurate digital solution. We're talking about 3-4x more expensive for the digital solution, and it's lower image quality.

None taken. You obviously know more than i on the subject. I still stand by my point that new 70mm imax builds will be few and far between. smile.gif Enjoy them if you can!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › The New Master List of BASS in Movies with Frequency Charts