Looking at Ian’s “IMAX Logo in Auditorium” photo, the vertical geometry of the auditorium appears to be compromised in terms of seating height in relation to the screen. In particular, according to the 1983 article published in the SMPTE Journal which details the geometric requirements for a “classic” IMAX, the last row should be in line with about the mid-point of the screen height.
Simply put, the screen is too low.
(Incidentally, the article states that at time the smallest IMAX screen was 21.3ft.x32.7ft. in an auditorium having 120 seats, and the largest was 70.5ft.x96ft. in an auditorium having 988 seats.)
Having a look at various photos on the web—this place certainly has a very impressive—if somewhat overbearing—proscenium!
I actually prefer the more muted colour scheme in Ian’s 1986 photo than the current look.
LARGE_screen_format: I’m assuming Dolby Stereo wasn’t installed for the “Star Wars” presentation?
The first film I saw in a cinema was “The Jungle Book” (1967) during its run as a re-release in the mid-80s. Alas, this was in the local Coronet, which although it was once a lovely “streamline moderne” 1930s Odeon, had seen better days and was badly subdivided.
But then a few years later I then “discovered” Empire 1 and found shangri-la. :–)
According to the Cineworld Group plc’s 2016 Annual Report, the acquisition of the 5 sites from Empire Cinemas in 2016 for £94.6m represented a “goodwill of £60.6m” over the “fair value of net assets acquired” of “£33.9m.” theatreofvarieties confirmed on Cinema Treasures that Empire sold those sites because Cineworld were offering “silly money.”
This scheme (“East Square Regeneration”) seems to be local authority led—maybe it will be leased to Empire Cinemas on favourable terms? It would definitely seem to be a case of “overbuilding” though?!
Addendum: The proposed Auditorium 1 would also appear to be a probable IMPACT screen—similar layout with 242 seats (165 standard, 31 recliner and 46 sofa / + 3 disabled on row 2.) Proposed floor-to-ceiling height in “Section AA” of the “Proposed Sections” document is 9.43m (~30.9ft.)
Auditoria 1 and 10 are orientated at 90° to each other, and share a large projection room.
The proposed Auditorium 2 (120 seats) is a D-BOX screen.
It has a relatively low row count (9) for what used to be an IMPACT screen and was classed as Empire Cinemas second flagship cinema.
Thomas Anderson (“beneficial owner” of Empire Cinemas) holds (via “IMAGE LTD.”) a couple of patents on cinema auditorium geometry, of greatest relevance here:
I’ve covered this previously in other posts on CT, but this now seems to be a revised version and the patent has been granted by the UK Patent Office.
To quote — the abstract:
“A cinema structure comprises an auditorium defined between a floor, a ceiling, front and rear walls and side walls, which is of length similar to its width and of height, approximately half its width. A screen which is substantially the width and height of the auditorium is located adjacent the front wall.”
In other words, essentially all rows are within 1x screen width from the screen.
The geometry described in these patents is used for the IMPACT auditoria, for example:
“The IMPACT screen uses Empire Cinema’s patented IMPACT design…”
(Thomas Anderson holds another patent for small auditoria, branded “STUDIO” by Empire Cinemas. Screen 5 (former Screen 7) at the Cineworld (Empire) LSQ is a good example of one, although it wasn’t actually branded as “STUDIO” screen.)
No idea what the screen size is/was for the former IMPACT auditorium; Basildon Council’s site does not have any publically available full database of licensing applications/grants.
I think it was a pilot site for the IMPACT concept and perhaps the low capacity and correspondingly not quite “super-size” screen means that Cineworld don’t consider it big enough to be a “Superscreen”? In any case, the IMPACT geometry detailed in the above-linked patent reveals why there aren’t that many rows, as the auditorium depth would need to be about the same as its width.
I did have a look through the planning applications to no avail; however, there is a scheme for a new 10 screen cinema as part of the “East Square Regeneration” scheme—planning application (Received 24th February 2018, approved 22nd August 2018.)
12 rows – of which the front 8 – standard (3 disabled in row 2), the next 2 – sofas, and the rear 2 – recliners (and 1 disabled on the last row.)
Now for the interesting part—looking at “Section BB” in the “Proposed Sections” document, Auditorium 10 has a proposed floor to ceiling height* of 13.29m (=43.6ft.) If a 1.9:1 ratio wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling screen is installed, then this means that the possibility exists of a screen size well over 21m/70ft. wide—maybe even close to 80ft. wide.
Either way, if this development proceeds with Empire Cinemas as the operator, looks like an IMPACT auditorium is making its way back to Basildon, this time presumably with top-end laser projection and an Atmos sound system…
LARGE_screen_format: You’re right that I am, but I’ve come down with a bit of cold I’m afraid. :–(
The OSC IMAX did indeed originally have non-recliners installed at the time of the IMAX retrofit, as shown in the above-linked YouTube video at about 17 seconds in.
I’m not aware of any other IMAXs in the UK with reclining seats—albeit I’m half asleep now!—however, an ODEON Cinemas Group press release claims it to be the first IMAX in London with all-reclining seats.
I had thought that I’d not want to recline seats, but, once you hit the “down” button it’s just too comfortable to raise back up! However, I have done this or physically raised my head up somewhat for key “active”/“busy” scenes where I wanted to better hear the stereo imaging provided by the surrounds/overheads.
Ian: Perhaps I should explain the purpose behind my “super cinema” comment?
LARGE_screen_format has made various contributions to this site and opened up numerous discussions that I’ve enjoyed responding to and learning from, which I very much hope will continue.
However, LARGE_screen_format seemed eager for the OLS to have a “giant” screen installed, even though the licensing application plans suggest otherwise, and I thought I’d post what I thought was a gentle reminder about heritage considerations.
I’m afraid that I didn’t forsee any controversy!
I think Terry’s definition is about the same as the one I’d have in mind for classic “super” cinemas; ultimately, “super” or not, maybe we should just be glad that the venues you mention still exist?!
Indeed it is contestable that the OLS is still in its original form.
Of course you’re right that most of the original decorative elements have been removed.
To be clear, by “form” I was referring more to the (three dimensional) shape, in particular of the auditorium, rather than decorative details, and that’s what the refurbishment seems to retain, c.f. a more radical scheme to shoehorn in a truly “giant” screen.
We shall just have to wait and see what the ongoing refurbishment yields!
BUT, I am also aware of the lazy journalism around, and the fact that this site is the pre-eminent source of cinema history in the UK (if not worldwide), and felt the need to contest the impression that the OLS was the last “super” in which to see a movie. […]
[…] It will be interesting to see if the Empire (former Carlton and built in conjunction with Paramount) Haymarket, which contains more original features than the OLS (despite sub-division), is successful in the current listing application.
Ah, OK—I think I see what you’re getting at?
My uninformed view on its future is not optimistic, but I wish all involved in “saving” the Empire (Carlton) Haymarket all the very best in their endeavours.
with the reclining seats (why do people need to lie down to watch a film?) […]
To compete with bed + video on demand + 65" TV = no trip to cinema…
[…] I suspect the OLS will look even less like a “super” when it reopens.
Recliners will surely adjust the perceived scale and massing; however, the new “rear” circle seating capacity won’t be too different to the existing; the seating will be wider whilst keeping the same back-to-back distance; however, the added rows and removed centre aisle compensate for this.
I fully realise that I am a dinosaur who fondly remembers the days of stalls and balcony luxury cinemas (Gaumont Manchester aged around 5), with screen tabs, separate performances, masking and all the other extras which have been junked in most venues. I do find it depressing that the only – I think – place you can now regularly view a film authentically in a large “super” is at the .which is grade 2* listed.
Not sure all of those elements are going the way of the dinosaur exactly, it just depends on the market segment?
I can understand that seeing the physical instantiations of one’s memories “bulldozed” time and again is not an enviable set of experiences—however, there are lots of interesting developments in the cinema world today which I think are worthy of attention—it isn’t all doom and gloom. :–)
No disrespect was intended from my post – I am hugely appreciative of CF100’s updates (particularly the links to the plans) of the OLS.
Thank you Ian—I should express my gratitude to this site for providing a repository which holds a wealth of material on cinemas, I trust for posterity—as well as a focal point for what most people would consider to be a rather strange avocation—without it I would never have been able to fully develop my own interest in this subject.
[Random text to overcome “Your comment appears to be spam” message/restriction which is preventing reposting text that has been edited to a minor extent.]
Searching for “085811” will lead to 1 result, namely, an October 2017 licensing application—plans are available under the “Documents” tab of its page.
I previously recall reading 60ft. as the width of the Swiss Cottage IMAX screen—estimating it from the plans, it’s ~17.5m wide (= ~57.5ft) by the chord.
On the centre line, distance from the screen to the row before last (the last has the booth in the middle of it!) is ~1.15, and to the first row (also ruined by having the vomitory access in the middle) is 0.42. So, in this respect, it’s just a bit off the classic IMAX specification.
And after all that, it turns out the screen size is on Odeon’s site under the “Auditorium Info” tab:
“IMAX Screen Size – 8.86m high x 17.58m wide.”
Which, for the metric-phobic, converts to ~57.7ft. x ~29ft. to ~57.7ft. x ~29ft.
(I’m amazed that my estimate seems to have been pretty close to Odeon’s published figure!)
The Giant Screen Cinema Association has published specifications for giant screens, which state 70ft./21.3m to be the minimum width*, and the maximum distance to the last row not to exceed screen width.
(*Or alteratively an minimum area of 3100sq.ft./288sq.m.; or 60ft./18.3m diameter for “dome” screens.)
I’ll leave it to anyone reading this to consider what the motivations are or aren’t behind these specs, but suffice to say that their stated aim is essentially to differentate the “classic” institutional-type venue from the increasing screen sizes found in multiplexes.
Personally, I think 60ft. wide is probably acceptable for an IMAX auditorium (as long as the geometry requirements are essentially met); anything much smaller is surely pushing it though? Swiss Cottage is a retrofit so it seems reasonable to cut it a bit of slack c.f. the purpose-built “classic” venues from which the GSCA has derived its requirements.
I’m afraid I haven’t visited the OSC since attending a screening of “The Last Days of Disco”(!) Certainly looks like a comfortable place to see a film with the recliners (plus the bonus of the retained ceiling features from the original auditorium.)
Oops, looks like daniels3d had already replied. D'oh—sorry!
“Luxe” upgrade of the IMAX auditorium – Shows the construction of the adjusted stadia, installation of new stretched fabric on the sidewalls and “IMAX” logo feature on the right sidewall, seating installation (duh!), and the auditorium back in a finished state.
LARGE_screen_format: Are you able to scan it or maybe take a photo of it? Please? :–)
Better than nothing, and sometimes Photoshop can work wonders (if the information actually exists it can be “pulled out”…)
Can’t say I remember the “Licence to Thrill” experience, must have been before SegaWorld opened? (I did go to the “Guinness World of Records” that was there before SegaWorld and the Pepsi IMAX)—as an aside, I have a suspicion that many of those exhibits ultimately found a new home in the “Ripley’s Believe It or Not!” attraction in the (former) London Pavilion!
Looking at the licensing plans, the stalls have steps up to each of the last three rows. Revisiting the old cross-sectional drawing, it’s clear that these are needed to raise up the new rear of the stalls to entrance foyer level.
It is also obvious from the cross-sectional drawing that the revised stalls seating obviates the rear stalls sightline issue, where for the very rear seats the balcony only just avoided obscuring the top of the screen. Presumably a 1.9:1 screen (~25ft. high) could now be installed.
With the screen (at least according to the licensing plans!) moved slightly forward, all of the “recliner” seats will be within, by my estimates, 1.5x screen distance away from the screen. If not “IMAX” standard, this is still sort of in line with what Odeon brands as “immersive” for their iSense auditoria.
LARGE_screen_format: Certainly have been many spectaculars attached to the OLS over the years! IIRC “Europe’s Premiere Cinema” was written across the main doors from LSQ right up until it was closed for refurbishment; it’s certainly still there in the October 2017 dated Google Streetview shot. I guess it must have been changed from “Europe’s Largest Cinema” at some point?
Great to hear about the ABC Globe restoration (which I wasn’t aware of), and fascinating to watch the videos that you linked to on its Cinema Treasures page.
Just getting over-excited… (and I’m afraid mid-Hampshire is about as far out of London that I’ve got this year.) I would have thought the new information on the OLS refurb would be received as very good news here?
That’s a huge outlay if the main changes are just seats and extra restrooms compared to what has gone on across the square at Cineworld, LSQ over the past five years.
I thought so too—but let’s do a crude “back of an envelope” cost calculation:
“At the top of the range a specialist exhibitor would expect to pay around £2,000 per square metre [for fitting out.]”
No idea when this guide was published, plus all the other factors that would need to be taken into consideration—
however, the cost/sq.m. can be estimated for recent refurbishments of the neighbouring cinemas:
(*Lobbies/4DX area according to Chapman Taylor; other refurbished screens estimated.)
Unweighted average for Empire/Vue/Cineworld = ~£2600/sq.m.
Using this figure for the OLS – Estimated ~3000sq.m. (including former Studios but excluding stage house, basement, etc.) = ~£8m.
The scheme does involve structural alterations, particularly to the foyer areas; the addition of lifts and escalators, and a new “glazed box” balcony/canopy on the LSQ elevation.
Also, the building fabric may require attention—the asbestos roof was replaced a couple of years ago, and the enabling works for the refurbishment also involved asbestos removal.
I agree that a giant screen in the OLS would be nice, but at the same time the fact that the auditorium looks like it will be reinstated in a state highly respectful to the heritage is a huge relief. It is the last “super cinema” still essentially in its original form operated as a cinema in the UK!
I’m trying to find the requirements for a Dolby Cinema—a What Hi-Fi? article says that the “The minimum screen size necessary is about 14m, but seat-wise there’s no specific size an auditorium needs to be to qualify for renovation.”
I don’t know if the plans mean that it won’t be a Dolby Cinema, just that having conjured up possible schemes based on inferring the implications of the publically disclosed information from Odeon, not to mention the apparent secrecy and high projected cost, I’m very surprised.
Great news in the sense that it remains intact as it was, but compared to the ideas I had for more radical schemes it’s, well, boring—and I’ve got egg on my face now for my predictions (other than the change to the rear stalls) being so far off the mark!
Still, Dolby Cinema or not, I’m looking forward to the reopening…
100° (2D) and 50° (3D) sightlines are also drawn on the former Studios auditoria, and one might well expect that they will still be using polarisation-based 3D. Hmm…
FWIW the screen shown on the old licensing plans (drawing dated 2005) measures ~48ft. wide (by the chord.)
Rear stalls largely removed to make way for toilets, switch room, “food prep” area, and concessions (namely, “Snacks and Cold Food; Order Hot Food,” “Hot Food Collection,” and “Coffee.”)
Stalls accessed through double sets of doors on the left side ONLY, via a small “lobby” area. (One pair of doors into the lobby, another into the auditorium.)
The last three rows of the new stalls are under the balcony; the rear of the auditorium, compared to previous, is about the position of the seat backs 7 rows from the rear. (5 in the centre section which omitted the last two rows.)
All seats are recliners.
Circle:
Royal Circle is now 3 rows deep, except it is 2 rows deep in the centre section. Seating capacity – 90.
Additional new wide centre vomitorium access to Royal Circle.
Back row of the new Royal Circle in line with the 5th row of the previous (formerly 6 rows deep.)
All seats (in the new Royal Circle) are recliners. Existing two aisles at sidewalls removed.
Rear circle – 14 rows of seats to rear wall. Rows in the same position as existing except 2 additional rows to rear wall. New seats of increased width; no centre aisle.
Front of auditorium:
Splay walls in same location.
Increased stage width shown.
Screen width identical as drawn but moved forward to be just behind proscenium opening. (Albeit this is probably not a reliable source for the absolute size and position.)
*Theatre lighting rail shown on “Second Floor” plan.
Alterations to ground floor and circle foyers:
Other substantive details than new concessions offer already covered in Odeon’s planning application and summarised in previous posts on Cinema Treasures.
Seating capacity of stalls and rear circle:
I’m not yet quite crazy enough to bother!
Former Odeon Mezzanine/Studios (now integrated with the OLS as the ground floor foyers are connected internally):
Screen 2: 34 seats (Former Screen 3 of Odeon Studios.)
Screen 3: 41 seats (Former Screen 2 of Odeon Studios.)
Screen 4 :40 seats (Former Screen 4 of Odeon Studios.)
Screen 5: 34 seats (Former Screen 5 of Odeon Studios.)
In all auditoria, most rows are 6 seats wide (the maximum) and all seats are increased width being drawn identically to the new rear circle seats. Row locations adjusted.
Projection rooms removed, alterations to access areas including new lift to all levels.
Stairwell adjacent to external wall to LSQ removed and Screen 3 (former Screen 2) extended forward.
Can’t be bothered to enumerate other changes to the former Odeon Mezzanine/Studios!
Looks like the main auditorium of the OLS will survive the refurbishment very much intact after all. Seems odd that Odeon were talking about installing a PLF screen… wonder if it will be a Dolby Cinema location after all?
This being said, the “First Floor” plan shows sightlines for 2D and 3D, with a 100° angle for 2D and 50° for 3D. (As drawn, about half of the Royal Circle seats are thus outside of the 3D seating area!) Not sure what the allowed angles are for Dolby Cinema, but it might be interesting to compare to the LSQ IMAX and/or other systems using wavelength multiplexed 3D.
HowardBHaas: No idea about the accuracy of the opening programme although maybe that was the size of the screen on its frame.
Perhaps I should have asked if LARGE_screen_format’s screen size figure pertained to the 1990s as stated or if it was for the post-2006 upgrades—albeit as you intimate none of this is needed for relative comparisons between venues where the differences are >10ft.!
The replacement screen was larger than the previous, and necessitated the removal of the contour curtain (which came down in vertical sections from above the screen.)
According to the Gala Opening Programme, the original screen installed during the 1962 reconstruction was 63ft. x 30ft. (Masked sizes for various formats not given.)
Not sure if the size you’ve quoted for the Odeon Marble Arch is for the original Dimension 150 screen before it was replaced?
Update on OLS works as seen from LSQ as of yesterday: Same as previous post.
HowardBHaas: Having to convert between metric and imperial (or “English” as I believe you guys call it; or, as Wikipedia informs me, strictly “United States customary units!”) is indeed a giant PIT*! I, too, prefer imperial for screen sizes.
LARGE_screen_format: Indeed, 2000 was before the emergence of IMAX in the feature film sector and the development of PLF screens as “competitors” of sorts.
Besides, 20m wide would be on the very large side (outside of perhaps “drive-in” locations!) for 35mm and 5/70mm film projection?
Remember also that the “classic” viewing distrance guidelines were based on the limitations of conventional projection of 35mm film prints, i.e. placing the audience far enough away that their perception of the inherent artifacts was kept at an acceptable level; and, also, that IMAX introduced their “DMR” process, initially so that 35mm sources would be acceptable when blown up to 15/70 and shown in an IMAX auditorium, including the use of digital noise reduction to reduce grain.
IOW… it would make no sense to stick in an IMAX-sized screen relative to the auditorium size without suitable projection (and content!) to match…
Or to put it another way, if you like super large screens, then consider yourself lucky that today there’s an ever-expanding embarrassment of riches to choose from thanks to digital. ;–)
LARGE_screen_format: According to the above linked ES Global Solutions page, the “Skyscape” building took 16 weeks to build, 8 weeks to dismantle, and cost £10m(!) As the “project completion” date was April 2002, I assume that’s when “dismantling” had been completed.
The page also says: “Skyscape was required for the duration of the Millennium Dome event as dual cinema venues each having capacity for 2,500 people. The East cinema was also designed to be deployed as a 5,500 capacity auditorium for music shows and other events.”
The former gasworks on Greenwich Peninsula have been (and continues to be) built out since the “Millennium Experience”—on the Dome site per se AFAIK the only (major?) buildings left are the Dome itself—if an oversized tent* can be called a “building”!—and the above-ground part of North Greenwich station.
(*Not to demean it… excepting that the fabric seems to permanently be in a state requiring cleaning, it looks cool and is definitely iconic, and I’d be fairly annoyed if it was ever torn down!)
According to the above Skyscape promotional video it was the UK’s largest cinema with 3,300 seats!
Looking at an interior photo courtesy of ES Global Solutions, it looks fairly “barebones” and—hard to say from this photo—but it doesn’t look like there’s any acoustic treatment to the ceiling.
Looking at Ian’s “IMAX Logo in Auditorium” photo, the vertical geometry of the auditorium appears to be compromised in terms of seating height in relation to the screen. In particular, according to the 1983 article published in the SMPTE Journal which details the geometric requirements for a “classic” IMAX, the last row should be in line with about the mid-point of the screen height.
Simply put, the screen is too low.
(Incidentally, the article states that at time the smallest IMAX screen was 21.3ft.x32.7ft. in an auditorium having 120 seats, and the largest was 70.5ft.x96ft. in an auditorium having 988 seats.)
Having a look at various photos on the web—this place certainly has a very impressive—if somewhat overbearing—proscenium!
I actually prefer the more muted colour scheme in Ian’s 1986 photo than the current look.
LARGE_screen_format: I’m assuming Dolby Stereo wasn’t installed for the “Star Wars” presentation?
The first film I saw in a cinema was “The Jungle Book” (1967) during its run as a re-release in the mid-80s. Alas, this was in the local Coronet, which although it was once a lovely “streamline moderne” 1930s Odeon, had seen better days and was badly subdivided.
But then a few years later I then “discovered” Empire 1 and found shangri-la. :–)
According to the Cineworld Group plc’s 2016 Annual Report, the acquisition of the 5 sites from Empire Cinemas in 2016 for £94.6m represented a “goodwill of £60.6m” over the “fair value of net assets acquired” of “£33.9m.” theatreofvarieties confirmed on Cinema Treasures that Empire sold those sites because Cineworld were offering “silly money.”
It seems that the idea of a new multiplex in Basildon’s town centre has been floating around for a while, and in 2016 no operator had been found for a different scheme.
This scheme (“East Square Regeneration”) seems to be local authority led—maybe it will be leased to Empire Cinemas on favourable terms? It would definitely seem to be a case of “overbuilding” though?!
Addendum: The proposed Auditorium 1 would also appear to be a probable IMPACT screen—similar layout with 242 seats (165 standard, 31 recliner and 46 sofa / + 3 disabled on row 2.) Proposed floor-to-ceiling height in “Section AA” of the “Proposed Sections” document is 9.43m (~30.9ft.)
Auditoria 1 and 10 are orientated at 90° to each other, and share a large projection room.
The proposed Auditorium 2 (120 seats) is a D-BOX screen.
LARGE_screen_format:
Thomas Anderson (“beneficial owner” of Empire Cinemas) holds (via “IMAGE LTD.”) a couple of patents on cinema auditorium geometry, of greatest relevance here:
A cinema structure and a method for constructing a cinema structure.
Where the full text and drawings are available for the US application.
I’ve covered this previously in other posts on CT, but this now seems to be a revised version and the patent has been granted by the UK Patent Office.
To quote — the abstract:
“A cinema structure comprises an auditorium defined between a floor, a ceiling, front and rear walls and side walls, which is of length similar to its width and of height, approximately half its width. A screen which is substantially the width and height of the auditorium is located adjacent the front wall.”
In other words, essentially all rows are within 1x screen width from the screen.
The geometry described in these patents is used for the IMPACT auditoria, for example:
Christie Digital – Press Release – “Christie adds Vive Audio Excellence to Luxury Empire Cinemas Screen” — to quote:
“The IMPACT screen uses Empire Cinema’s patented IMPACT design…”
(Thomas Anderson holds another patent for small auditoria, branded “STUDIO” by Empire Cinemas. Screen 5 (former Screen 7) at the Cineworld (Empire) LSQ is a good example of one, although it wasn’t actually branded as “STUDIO” screen.)
No idea what the screen size is/was for the former IMPACT auditorium; Basildon Council’s site does not have any publically available full database of licensing applications/grants.
I think it was a pilot site for the IMPACT concept and perhaps the low capacity and correspondingly not quite “super-size” screen means that Cineworld don’t consider it big enough to be a “Superscreen”? In any case, the IMPACT geometry detailed in the above-linked patent reveals why there aren’t that many rows, as the auditorium depth would need to be about the same as its width.
I did have a look through the planning applications to no avail; however, there is a scheme for a new 10 screen cinema as part of the “East Square Regeneration” scheme—planning application (Received 24th February 2018, approved 22nd August 2018.)
It turns out that the operator will be Empire Cinemas: Basildon Council Press Release -Cinema Provider Announced in New Town Centre Leisure Scheme.
(The above linked press release is dated 11th June 2018—you may need to rub your eyes; but, no, not 1st April!)
The largest auditorium shown in the plans is Auditorium 10, with the following seating configuration:
457 seats – 354 standard, 43 Recliner, 60 Sofa / + 4 disabled.
12 rows – of which the front 8 – standard (3 disabled in row 2), the next 2 – sofas, and the rear 2 – recliners (and 1 disabled on the last row.)
Now for the interesting part—looking at “Section BB” in the “Proposed Sections” document, Auditorium 10 has a proposed floor to ceiling height* of 13.29m (=43.6ft.) If a 1.9:1 ratio wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling screen is installed, then this means that the possibility exists of a screen size well over 21m/70ft. wide—maybe even close to 80ft. wide.
Either way, if this development proceeds with Empire Cinemas as the operator, looks like an IMPACT auditorium is making its way back to Basildon, this time presumably with top-end laser projection and an Atmos sound system…
Indeed we do. Thanks, I’m on the mend. :–)
LARGE_screen_format: You’re right that I am, but I’ve come down with a bit of cold I’m afraid. :–(
The OSC IMAX did indeed originally have non-recliners installed at the time of the IMAX retrofit, as shown in the above-linked YouTube video at about 17 seconds in.
LARGE_screen_format: You’re very welcome. :–)
I’m not aware of any other IMAXs in the UK with reclining seats—albeit I’m half asleep now!—however, an ODEON Cinemas Group press release claims it to be the first IMAX in London with all-reclining seats.
I had thought that I’d not want to recline seats, but, once you hit the “down” button it’s just too comfortable to raise back up! However, I have done this or physically raised my head up somewhat for key “active”/“busy” scenes where I wanted to better hear the stereo imaging provided by the surrounds/overheads.
Ian: Perhaps I should explain the purpose behind my “super cinema” comment?
LARGE_screen_format has made various contributions to this site and opened up numerous discussions that I’ve enjoyed responding to and learning from, which I very much hope will continue.
However, LARGE_screen_format seemed eager for the OLS to have a “giant” screen installed, even though the licensing application plans suggest otherwise, and I thought I’d post what I thought was a gentle reminder about heritage considerations.
I’m afraid that I didn’t forsee any controversy!
I think Terry’s definition is about the same as the one I’d have in mind for classic “super” cinemas; ultimately, “super” or not, maybe we should just be glad that the venues you mention still exist?!
Of course you’re right that most of the original decorative elements have been removed.
To be clear, by “form” I was referring more to the (three dimensional) shape, in particular of the auditorium, rather than decorative details, and that’s what the refurbishment seems to retain, c.f. a more radical scheme to shoehorn in a truly “giant” screen.
We shall just have to wait and see what the ongoing refurbishment yields!
Ah, OK—I think I see what you’re getting at?
My uninformed view on its future is not optimistic, but I wish all involved in “saving” the Empire (Carlton) Haymarket all the very best in their endeavours.
To compete with bed + video on demand + 65" TV = no trip to cinema…
Recliners will surely adjust the perceived scale and massing; however, the new “rear” circle seating capacity won’t be too different to the existing; the seating will be wider whilst keeping the same back-to-back distance; however, the added rows and removed centre aisle compensate for this.
Not sure all of those elements are going the way of the dinosaur exactly, it just depends on the market segment?
I grew up with “showman” theatrical presentation in the West End cinemas; concurrently, however, the average local Cannon/Coronet/etc. were hardly being fit for purpose.
I can understand that seeing the physical instantiations of one’s memories “bulldozed” time and again is not an enviable set of experiences—however, there are lots of interesting developments in the cinema world today which I think are worthy of attention—it isn’t all doom and gloom. :–)
Thank you Ian—I should express my gratitude to this site for providing a repository which holds a wealth of material on cinemas, I trust for posterity—as well as a focal point for what most people would consider to be a rather strange avocation—without it I would never have been able to fully develop my own interest in this subject.
[Random text to overcome “Your comment appears to be spam” message/restriction which is preventing reposting text that has been edited to a minor extent.]
LARGE_screen_format:
L.B. of Camden – Search the Public Licensing Register.
Searching for “085811” will lead to 1 result, namely, an October 2017 licensing application—plans are available under the “Documents” tab of its page.
I previously recall reading 60ft. as the width of the Swiss Cottage IMAX screen—estimating it from the plans, it’s ~17.5m wide (= ~57.5ft) by the chord.
On the centre line, distance from the screen to the row before last (the last has the booth in the middle of it!) is ~1.15, and to the first row (also ruined by having the vomitory access in the middle) is 0.42. So, in this respect, it’s just a bit off the classic IMAX specification.
And after all that, it turns out the screen size is on Odeon’s site under the “Auditorium Info” tab:
“IMAX Screen Size – 8.86m high x 17.58m wide.”
Which, for the metric-phobic, converts to ~57.7ft. x ~29ft. to ~57.7ft. x ~29ft.
(I’m amazed that my estimate seems to have been pretty close to Odeon’s published figure!)
The Giant Screen Cinema Association has published specifications for giant screens, which state 70ft./21.3m to be the minimum width*, and the maximum distance to the last row not to exceed screen width.
(*Or alteratively an minimum area of 3100sq.ft./288sq.m.; or 60ft./18.3m diameter for “dome” screens.)
I’ll leave it to anyone reading this to consider what the motivations are or aren’t behind these specs, but suffice to say that their stated aim is essentially to differentate the “classic” institutional-type venue from the increasing screen sizes found in multiplexes.
Personally, I think 60ft. wide is probably acceptable for an IMAX auditorium (as long as the geometry requirements are essentially met); anything much smaller is surely pushing it though? Swiss Cottage is a retrofit so it seems reasonable to cut it a bit of slack c.f. the purpose-built “classic” venues from which the GSCA has derived its requirements.
I’m afraid I haven’t visited the OSC since attending a screening of “The Last Days of Disco”(!) Certainly looks like a comfortable place to see a film with the recliners (plus the bonus of the retained ceiling features from the original auditorium.)
Oops, looks like daniels3d had already replied. D'oh—sorry!
Just spotted a “3D Glasses Store” off the circle foyer. Might just be another clue that it will be a Dolby Cinema…!
ODEON IMAX SEATING UPGRADE TIMELAPSE.
“Luxe” upgrade of the IMAX auditorium – Shows the construction of the adjusted stadia, installation of new stretched fabric on the sidewalls and “IMAX” logo feature on the right sidewall, seating installation (duh!), and the auditorium back in a finished state.
LARGE_screen_format: Are you able to scan it or maybe take a photo of it? Please? :–)
Better than nothing, and sometimes Photoshop can work wonders (if the information actually exists it can be “pulled out”…)
Can’t say I remember the “Licence to Thrill” experience, must have been before SegaWorld opened? (I did go to the “Guinness World of Records” that was there before SegaWorld and the Pepsi IMAX)—as an aside, I have a suspicion that many of those exhibits ultimately found a new home in the “Ripley’s Believe It or Not!” attraction in the (former) London Pavilion!
New seating capacity (as I counted on the licensing plans)–
Royal Circle: 90 (recliner) + 2 disabled. Circle: 446. Stalls: 258 (recliner) + 4 disabled.
Total = 794 + 6 disabled.
Looking at the licensing plans, the stalls have steps up to each of the last three rows. Revisiting the old cross-sectional drawing, it’s clear that these are needed to raise up the new rear of the stalls to entrance foyer level.
It is also obvious from the cross-sectional drawing that the revised stalls seating obviates the rear stalls sightline issue, where for the very rear seats the balcony only just avoided obscuring the top of the screen. Presumably a 1.9:1 screen (~25ft. high) could now be installed.
With the screen (at least according to the licensing plans!) moved slightly forward, all of the “recliner” seats will be within, by my estimates, 1.5x screen distance away from the screen. If not “IMAX” standard, this is still sort of in line with what Odeon brands as “immersive” for their iSense auditoria.
LARGE_screen_format: Certainly have been many spectaculars attached to the OLS over the years! IIRC “Europe’s Premiere Cinema” was written across the main doors from LSQ right up until it was closed for refurbishment; it’s certainly still there in the October 2017 dated Google Streetview shot. I guess it must have been changed from “Europe’s Largest Cinema” at some point?
Thank you Terry.
Great to hear about the ABC Globe restoration (which I wasn’t aware of), and fascinating to watch the videos that you linked to on its Cinema Treasures page.
Sorry Ian! :–(
Just getting over-excited… (and I’m afraid mid-Hampshire is about as far out of London that I’ve got this year.) I would have thought the new information on the OLS refurb would be received as very good news here?
LARGE_screen_format:
I thought so too—but let’s do a crude “back of an envelope” cost calculation:
According to Independent Cinema Office – How to Start a Cinema – Capitalisation:
“At the top of the range a specialist exhibitor would expect to pay around £2,000 per square metre [for fitting out.]”
No idea when this guide was published, plus all the other factors that would need to be taken into consideration— however, the cost/sq.m. can be estimated for recent refurbishments of the neighbouring cinemas:
Empire 1 IMAX conversion – Estimated ~1500sq.m., cost £4m = £2700/sq.m.
Vue West End refurbishment – ~6000sq.m., cost £6.7m. = £1100/sq.m.
Cineworld (Empire) LSQ – Lobbies/4DX conversion/Screens 1-3 and 5-7 refurbishment – Estimated ~1300sq.m.*, suggested cost £5m = £3850/sq.m.
(*Lobbies/4DX area according to Chapman Taylor; other refurbished screens estimated.)
Unweighted average for Empire/Vue/Cineworld = ~£2600/sq.m.
Using this figure for the OLS – Estimated ~3000sq.m. (including former Studios but excluding stage house, basement, etc.) = ~£8m.
The scheme does involve structural alterations, particularly to the foyer areas; the addition of lifts and escalators, and a new “glazed box” balcony/canopy on the LSQ elevation.
Planning application in relation to above paragraph.
Also, the building fabric may require attention—the asbestos roof was replaced a couple of years ago, and the enabling works for the refurbishment also involved asbestos removal.
I agree that a giant screen in the OLS would be nice, but at the same time the fact that the auditorium looks like it will be reinstated in a state highly respectful to the heritage is a huge relief. It is the last “super cinema” still essentially in its original form operated as a cinema in the UK!
I’m trying to find the requirements for a Dolby Cinema—a What Hi-Fi? article says that the “The minimum screen size necessary is about 14m, but seat-wise there’s no specific size an auditorium needs to be to qualify for renovation.”
Addendum (again!):
In the process of editing, I seem to have accidentally deleted the following:
I don’t know if the plans mean that it won’t be a Dolby Cinema, just that having conjured up possible schemes based on inferring the implications of the publically disclosed information from Odeon, not to mention the apparent secrecy and high projected cost, I’m very surprised.
Great news in the sense that it remains intact as it was, but compared to the ideas I had for more radical schemes it’s, well, boring—and I’ve got egg on my face now for my predictions (other than the change to the rear stalls) being so far off the mark!
Still, Dolby Cinema or not, I’m looking forward to the reopening…
Addendum:
Licensing Application – Dated as Received 7th August 2018.
In summary:
Stalls:
Rear stalls largely removed to make way for toilets, switch room, “food prep” area, and concessions (namely, “Snacks and Cold Food; Order Hot Food,” “Hot Food Collection,” and “Coffee.”)
Stalls accessed through double sets of doors on the left side ONLY, via a small “lobby” area. (One pair of doors into the lobby, another into the auditorium.)
The last three rows of the new stalls are under the balcony; the rear of the auditorium, compared to previous, is about the position of the seat backs 7 rows from the rear. (5 in the centre section which omitted the last two rows.)
All seats are recliners.
Circle:
Royal Circle is now 3 rows deep, except it is 2 rows deep in the centre section. Seating capacity – 90.
Additional new wide centre vomitorium access to Royal Circle.
Back row of the new Royal Circle in line with the 5th row of the previous (formerly 6 rows deep.)
All seats (in the new Royal Circle) are recliners. Existing two aisles at sidewalls removed.
Rear circle – 14 rows of seats to rear wall. Rows in the same position as existing except 2 additional rows to rear wall. New seats of increased width; no centre aisle.
Front of auditorium:
Splay walls in same location.
Increased stage width shown.
Screen width identical as drawn but moved forward to be just behind proscenium opening. (Albeit this is probably not a reliable source for the absolute size and position.)
*Theatre lighting rail shown on “Second Floor” plan.
Alterations to ground floor and circle foyers:
Seating capacity of stalls and rear circle:
Former Odeon Mezzanine/Studios (now integrated with the OLS as the ground floor foyers are connected internally):
Screen 2: 34 seats (Former Screen 3 of Odeon Studios.)
Screen 3: 41 seats (Former Screen 2 of Odeon Studios.)
Screen 4 :40 seats (Former Screen 4 of Odeon Studios.)
Screen 5: 34 seats (Former Screen 5 of Odeon Studios.)
In all auditoria, most rows are 6 seats wide (the maximum) and all seats are increased width being drawn identically to the new rear circle seats. Row locations adjusted.
Projection rooms removed, alterations to access areas including new lift to all levels.
Stairwell adjacent to external wall to LSQ removed and Screen 3 (former Screen 2) extended forward.
Can’t be bothered to enumerate other changes to the former Odeon Mezzanine/Studios!
Looks like the main auditorium of the OLS will survive the refurbishment very much intact after all. Seems odd that Odeon were talking about installing a PLF screen… wonder if it will be a Dolby Cinema location after all?
This being said, the “First Floor” plan shows sightlines for 2D and 3D, with a 100° angle for 2D and 50° for 3D. (As drawn, about half of the Royal Circle seats are thus outside of the 3D seating area!) Not sure what the allowed angles are for Dolby Cinema, but it might be interesting to compare to the LSQ IMAX and/or other systems using wavelength multiplexed 3D.
HowardBHaas: No idea about the accuracy of the opening programme although maybe that was the size of the screen on its frame.
Perhaps I should have asked if LARGE_screen_format’s screen size figure pertained to the 1990s as stated or if it was for the post-2006 upgrades—albeit as you intimate none of this is needed for relative comparisons between venues where the differences are >10ft.!
LARGE_screen_format: The screen sizes for the old Empire 1 following the 2006 overhaul from a Cinema Treasures post by Laurence Claydon*:
(*Then at Bell Theatre Services.)
“Cinemascope: 18.38x7.62m
“Widescreen: 14.95x8.06m
“70mm: 18.04x8.23m.”
The replacement screen was larger than the previous, and necessitated the removal of the contour curtain (which came down in vertical sections from above the screen.)
According to the Gala Opening Programme, the original screen installed during the 1962 reconstruction was 63ft. x 30ft. (Masked sizes for various formats not given.)
Not sure if the size you’ve quoted for the Odeon Marble Arch is for the original Dimension 150 screen before it was replaced?
Update on OLS works as seen from LSQ as of yesterday: Same as previous post.
HowardBHaas: Having to convert between metric and imperial (or “English” as I believe you guys call it; or, as Wikipedia informs me, strictly “United States customary units!”) is indeed a giant PIT*! I, too, prefer imperial for screen sizes.
LARGE_screen_format: Indeed, 2000 was before the emergence of IMAX in the feature film sector and the development of PLF screens as “competitors” of sorts.
Besides, 20m wide would be on the very large side (outside of perhaps “drive-in” locations!) for 35mm and 5/70mm film projection?
Remember also that the “classic” viewing distrance guidelines were based on the limitations of conventional projection of 35mm film prints, i.e. placing the audience far enough away that their perception of the inherent artifacts was kept at an acceptable level; and, also, that IMAX introduced their “DMR” process, initially so that 35mm sources would be acceptable when blown up to 15/70 and shown in an IMAX auditorium, including the use of digital noise reduction to reduce grain.
IOW… it would make no sense to stick in an IMAX-sized screen relative to the auditorium size without suitable projection (and content!) to match…
Or to put it another way, if you like super large screens, then consider yourself lucky that today there’s an ever-expanding embarrassment of riches to choose from thanks to digital. ;–)
LARGE_screen_format: According to the above linked ES Global Solutions page, the “Skyscape” building took 16 weeks to build, 8 weeks to dismantle, and cost £10m(!) As the “project completion” date was April 2002, I assume that’s when “dismantling” had been completed.
The page also says: “Skyscape was required for the duration of the Millennium Dome event as dual cinema venues each having capacity for 2,500 people. The East cinema was also designed to be deployed as a 5,500 capacity auditorium for music shows and other events.”
The former gasworks on Greenwich Peninsula have been (and continues to be) built out since the “Millennium Experience”—on the Dome site per se AFAIK the only (major?) buildings left are the Dome itself—if an oversized tent* can be called a “building”!—and the above-ground part of North Greenwich station.
(*Not to demean it… excepting that the fabric seems to permanently be in a state requiring cleaning, it looks cool and is definitely iconic, and I’d be fairly annoyed if it was ever torn down!)
Looking at an interior photo courtesy of ES Global Solutions, it looks fairly “barebones” and—hard to say from this photo—but it doesn’t look like there’s any acoustic treatment to the ceiling.
Having said that, it turns out that it was fully equipped in terms of film projection and “A-chain” sound equipment—in70mm.com – 70mm DTS at the Millennium Dome—to quote:
“Cinemeccanica Victoria 8 35/70 & Console 7kW Xenon. Cinemeccanica 70 CNR Platter. DTS 6AD with ES Processors. Screen size 20m wide.”