OT: The future of 2D cinema.

farss wrote on 7/30/2010, 6:52 AM
I must admit I've been a bit slow seeing the latest trends in cinemas. A few nights ago I had my first "Extremescreen" cinema experience. For anyone that's missed this think IMAX except without the IMAX projection system and content. Actually it may be worse than IMAX. These cinemas are wider than deep so even in the back row the field of view must be double that of a traditional cinema.

What first grabbed my attention was the audience clearly preferred the front rows. So I figured we'd be OK in the middle rows, not that it was going to make that much difference. I also knew the movie was shot with great attention to resolution so I thought the experience should be good.

Not so, not at all so. The story was brilliant, the score was brilliant, the 10,000W sound system was flawless, everything was great apart from the image. It was simply impossible to avoid feeling that at best nothing was really in focus and the next shot it was all just fuzzy. About the only thing that was OK, sort of, was the CGI plates and some of the wide shots which were shot on 70mm. I can only imagine what those in the front rows got to see.

Even more confounding is clearly content for such immersive screen sizes has to be shot with the size of the screen in mind. It's a wierd experience when you've got to crane your neck to go from looking at lips to see the eyes! Of course if the movie was shot with that in mind then it's going to be problematic on smaller screens let alone on DVD.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there was anything wrong with the movie as such, it would be technically perfect on a regular screen. I'll go see it again I think, just so I can see what I missed, realistically without doing damage to my neck I couldn't really see half of the movie.

The only saving grace to the whole experience was this movie wasn't in 3D. It would have been unwatchable if it was. If this is the future of cinema I don't know. Surely the paying public don't really want this and yet the cinema was packed and the audience must like the experience when they're going for the front rows, wierd. If this is what it takes to put bums on seats, fine, but to my way of seeing things this should be a serious game changer that poses way more technical challenges than 3D.

Interested to here others thoughts on this and if you haven't had one of these "Extremescreen" experiences go ahead and try it out, I'd suggest not with a movie you actually want to watch.

Bob.

Comments

Jay Gladwell wrote on 7/30/2010, 8:04 AM

How sad...

So far, I haven't heard of Extreme Screen, nothing around here is happening in that venue.

Found this online: http://www.cosi.org/visitors/theater/. From what this site says, they appear to be making programs especially for the screen format. Although, at first glance it doesn't look much different from IMAX.


ChrisMN wrote on 7/30/2010, 8:24 AM
Bob, out of curiosity what was the name of the movie?
Chris
ECB wrote on 7/30/2010, 8:38 AM
Reminds me of the original Cinerama with 3 cameras/projectors 90mm film and multichannel stereo. I saw all original Cinerama movies in a Cinerama theatre. Fantastic. The screen was curved and wide so the peripheral vision was spectacular. The first film I believe was This is Cinerama and after they took you through a visual history of motion pictures they expended to Cinerama and took you on a rollercoaster ride. The folks were screaming and moving just like it was real. They made several more pictures, evolved the process from 3 cameras to a single anamorphic lens, and then stopped.

In one scene from 7 Wonders of the World they are flying 100 feet off the ground at sunrise and break over the edge of the Grand Canyon unbelievable!

Ed B
JJKizak wrote on 7/30/2010, 9:06 AM
Never liked the vertical mesh lines on the screen with Cinerama.
JJK
Jay Gladwell wrote on 7/30/2010, 9:08 AM

Actually, Cinerama used three 35mm projectors. Later they opted for single 70mm prints.

farss wrote on 7/30/2010, 3:52 PM
The movie in question was Inception. Keep on mind though any movie is being shown in this class of cinema and going by the trailers all suffer the same fate.

Hoyts Xtremescreen

Someone mentioned Cinerama, that used a slightly wider aspect ratio than is used today for Cinemscope. It was shot with how it'd look on the screen in mind, technical details here. From an old friend of mine who worked for Westrex in the USA some of the screens added a sigificant 'bump' at the edge of the screen so the image curved out of focus.

Bob.
Noggle wrote on 7/30/2010, 8:01 PM
farss: "The movie in question was Inception."

I have just read an article where the producer said he deliberately didn't make it in 3D and gave all of his valid reasons. I suspect that they would also apply to Extremescreen as well. Please go and see it again and enjoy it the way it was supposed to be. It's a rare movie that, so far, has not had a bad review (of those several that I've read) - superlatives only.

Regards,
Noggle
Jay Gladwell wrote on 7/30/2010, 8:17 PM

"The movie in question was Inception."

They're showing that here in IMAX. Is Xtremescreen all that different?


farss wrote on 7/30/2010, 8:29 PM
" It's a rare movie that,"

Some serious minds worked on that movie, from another forum I found this:




I'll not give more away, I can not even say why everyone here should see it as that too would give away too much :)

Bob.

farss wrote on 7/30/2010, 8:44 PM
They're showing that here in IMAX. Is Xtremescreen all that different?"

Possibly not. The viewing angle would be about the same.
The only IMAX I've seen was shot and projected with IMAX film technology. I believe IMAX has gone to digital projection but using something like 4x 4K projectors.
To be honest I've avoided IMAX unless it was something I knew would work and that was shot specifically for it. The local IMAX cinema has been showing all manner of latest releases and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to watch a regular movie on such a giant screen where they're forced to be so close to the screen.

Bob.

Jay Gladwell wrote on 7/30/2010, 8:55 PM

Bob, you've really piqued my interest with that clip above.

My one and only experience with IMAX was many years ago. They had made a special version Disney's Fantasia for IMAX... It was like trying to watch a large screen TV six inches from your nose.

I hated it (the presentation, it's one of my favorite films). I haven't been back to an IMAX since then. IMHO, it's just another gimmick.


farss wrote on 7/30/2010, 11:59 PM
" It was like trying to watch a large screen TV six inches from your nose."

Indeed, well it seems you can get the same experience in regular cinemas now :(
" I haven't been back to an IMAX since then. IMHO, it's just another gimmick."

Depends how its used. I've only seen two IMAX movies. The first one was in the hemispherical IMAX cinema in Ceasar's Palace in Vegas. The doco on the Serengeti was fantastic however there's clearly a limit to how much content can be made for such a system. I believe that cinema is now gone.

The other was at the local IMAX cinema and it was Blue Planet. Certainly not a gimmick as such, simply a way for the rest of us to see what very few will ever get to see and get as close as possible to the experience. I suspect the IMAX movie shot on Everest would be worth a look too but certainly as you say there's a vast body of content that would simply be lost on IMAX and I doubt that was ever the intent of those who developed the system. The issue for many such systems is being economically viable and the dollar always comes first.

By the way if you're a fan of Fantasia try to see the Italian 'version', Allegro Non Troppo. Arguably better than the original. The piece to Sibelius's Valse triste always gets me, I'm a cat lover.

Bob.