The “purple” wall coverings you mentioned in a previous post are in fact a midnight blue colour and are part of the original decor, unaltered in Cineworld’s recent refurbishment.
The fabric coverings sure look (and measure in Photoshop!) purple as shown in the photo on Chapman Taylor’s site, with blue wall carpet on the vomitory walls and lower sidewalls.
The lighting features on the sidewalls are exactly the same as are/were (at least on opening) fitted to the IMPACT/Superscreen in Basildon, and can also be seen in an Eomac Case Study. It would have been better if the wall and stadia steps carpets had been replaced, though.
Slightly odd that Cineworld have left bits and pieces untouched, particularly as this must be one of their premiere sites.
Incidentally, during the period when the “dome” and environs were operating as the “Millennium Experience” exhibition, there was a Sky-sponsored cinema in a temporary building adjacent to the dome:
I did visit the “Millennium Experience” in 2000, although I don’t remember visiting Skyscape—frankly it was all so dire that I was quite glad to get out of there ASAP!
I do wonder why the “Sky Superscreen” was opened as a disproportionately large auditorium by today’s standards, unless it actually was part of the original “Millennium Experience” structures built inside the “dome”?
Zappomatic: Thanks for the photos, your comprehensive observations of the ScreenX auditorium and update on the O2 “Project Loop” construction.
yes it’s the school holidays but the majority of the audience was made up of adult couples and groups
I am minded to visit today on the way back from dropping someone off at Heathrow, but even the last performance is heavily booked. Argh!
Ventilation grilles are visible above the side projectors.
Hmm, were these there before?
Finally it seemed as though there was a very slight lag between the main screen and the side projectors, noticeable in jump cuts and scenes with a lot of movement and I can see this causing motion sickness in some people if not corrected.
Yikes—that’s very jarring. I imagine that the hardware/software to split the picture over all those projectors adds a bit of lag.
Looking at a photo of the ScreenX auditorium, it looks like the sidewalls are indeed stretched fabric, as the “seams” between fabric sections (where the fabric meets the profiles to which it’s attached) are visible.
Oddly, these appear to be rectangular sections of fabric, as both vertical and horizontal “seams” are visible, whereas usually the fabric width would relate to horizontal “seams”—Eomac recommends 168cm “usable”—and the fabric length would far exceed this thus requiring fewer vertical “seams.”
The fabric sections also appear not to be entirely colour matched, either.
LARGE_screen_format: The £35m figure is for the entire “Project Loop-Leisure and Cinema Extension” scheme, which also includes an indoor “trampoline park.” I assume Cineworld will be taking a lease on the space and their primary upfront capital cost will be for the fit-out.
As shown on the above-linked planning drawings, the largest auditorium will have an ~18m (~59ft.) wall-to-wall screen, with a centreline screen to last row distance of ~24m (~80ft.); so the last row will be ~1.35x screen width from the screen. (First row ~0.4x screen width from screen in centreline.)
Thus there will be plenty of “immersive” seating positions, and it will be interesting to see if Atmos is installed also.
(FYI, this auditorium is about ~29m deep, for a total area of ~530sq.m. (~5700sq.ft.))
1073sq.m. (~11500sq.ft.) (!) of new foyer space (at “Level 02”) will be provided to the “right”* of the existing, via 6 steps due to a slight floor level change, from which (the screen end of) 5 new auditoria can be accessed.
(*Relative to the entrance up escalator from “Level 00,” aka “ground level” of The O2.)
An additional “VIP” foyer, 365sq.m. (~3900sq.ft.) in floor area, will be provided off of this new foyer area, with stairs up to corridors at “Level 03” leading to 3 new auditoria situated above the new “Level 02” foyer areas.
(There is also a lift, presumably for disabled access, which is shared between the “extended” and “VIP” foyers, and an additional lobby at “Level 04” providing access to the rear of 5 auditoria accessible from the extended foyer area at “Level 02.”)
Note that whilst these drawings are marked as originating from CallisonRTKL, Chapman Taylor are the “fit-out and final delivery” architects.
According to a press release from The O2, the cinema extension (50,000sq.ft.) is an anchor to within a 110,000sq.ft. development scheduled to open in Q1 2019. A new 4DX auditorium within the extension is also mentioned.
(N.B. Registration is required to view the release on The O2’s site, but it seems to have been posted word-for-word elsewhere.)
List of seating capacities for all existent (pre-extension) auditoria.
Would not think it would be in the extension as the completion date isn’t until later this year, and IIRC from the plans (which for some reason I don’t seem to have provided a link to here, and I’m currently too tired to trawl around clunky local authority planning application databases!) the access to those auditoria will be via extended foyer/lobby areas.
“We’re excited to announce that ScreenX has opened at
Cineworld O2!
“ScreenX is the world’s first multi-projection cinema technology expanding the traditional cinema screen to the side auditorium walls, creating a 270-degree viewing experience. Plus, if you’re an Unlimited customer you can enjoy ScreenX for only £3!”
The application (dated as received 11th May 2018) is for the total redevelopment of an area which includes (but is not limited to) the existing Surrey Quays Shopping Centre and Leisure Park, with new units for retail, leisure, residential and other uses.
The proposals include the demolition and replacement of the existing cinema, although in relation to this the above linked application is outline only, being a detailed application only in respect of Phase 1 (which does not include the new cinema.)
CF100
commented about
Cinebowlon
Aug 7, 2018 at 12:58 am
Not sure about this idea of having the picture extend at 90 degrees onto the two side walls?
Neither am I!
Surely a more immersive experience would be achieved by having a wider, possibly curved, floor to ceiling screen.
It would extend further into the audience’s horizontal peripheral vision than IMAX — 270°, as you quote, is their advertised claim, vs. maximum 120° for an IMAX conforming to criteria — and those areas are used by the human brain for motion awareness…
I can’t see it working well in terms of producing a geometrically undistorted picture, and also consistent illumination, including across seating positions?
Plus keeping all the projectors properly aligned and calibrated?
(Of course, the old OMNIMAX system could achieve “wider than IMAX” images.)
Wonder if any existing 4DX auditoria get converted into ScreenX or whether they will all be new build or conversions of non-4DX screens only?
Adding ScreenX to existing 4DX auditoria seems likely? (Given the above) the system would seem to work well in tandem with the motion seating.
About 40% of the movie utilises the three screen, most of it is displayed on the front wall in the traditional way.
“[Shooting Screen X involves a] three cameras [setup], a center camera and two peripheral cameras. The cameras – we used three RED Epics [for the South Korean film “The X”] – are hooked up onto a rig that allows you to shoot simultaneously in three directions at the same time.”
Apparently, using white screens doesn’t work, and at the time of the interview, they were using a “very cool dark grey”:
“The reason white screens don’t work is that you are now projecting onto the walls itself, that is still a light source and it reflects off the main screen and washes off on the main screen. This is a color we came upon because it absorbs light and it doesn’t reflect onto the main screen and at the same time it retrains most of the contrast and the colors. We are still experimenting with different colors.”
Kim mentions that the CJ Group’s cinema subsidary CGV are using Tectum fabric covered walls. I’m not clear from the article if the fabric supplied with this system is used as the sidewall screen material.
Also: “We have developed a term called FSR, which is Front Side Ratio, so the front of the screen to how long the side of the theater is. Ideally it’s about 1.5 to 1.8. We don’t like it to be any longer than that and we don’t like it to be any shorter.” He goes on to say that “180 to 230 seats is ideal.”
Sounds like an interesting system but whilst 4DX “works” as a optional “gimmick” that’s added late in post, I’d question the long term viability of ScreenX as a specialist format given that it would seem to require considerable additional production costs and upfront commitment?
Adding ScreenX to the LSQ 4DX would seem to be a non-starter—unless the columns are allowed to “interrupt” the sidewall images? With the 4DX conversion already pushing the limit of the cinema’s demised area in the basement of 1-4 Leicester Square, not sure there’s room for all the extra projectors, either.
Meanwhile, vendors continue to push LED screens to replace projection in cinemas.
You might be interested in an article published by Hollywood Reporter, which also notes the apparent exasperation of Spielberg of Nolan and Spielberg at the prospect of direct view display systems in theatres.
According to this article, the first Samsung Onyx LED display system in the US was installed at Pacific Theatres Winnetka in Chatsworth, CA—in the suburbanised San Fernando Valley area ~15 miles NW of Hollywood—with “Ready Player One” being the first programmed feature.
LARGE_screen_format: Many thanks for counting all the seats. :–)
Regarding the IMAX seat count mystery, having a look at the seating diagram on the booking page for a 3D performance of “Ant-Man and the Wasp” in the IMAX, it is noticeable that rows A and B are missing.
In the seating diagram for a 2D performance of the same in the IMAX, rows A and B reappear, as do 24 missing side seats in rows C-F.
For 2D IMAX performances, my count of the seats comes to 275 + 4 disabled.
Total for the complex based on your count = 2053 + 43 disabled.
Wonder how much ScreenX content is available? “Ant-Man and the Wasp” has been released in this format, but I can’t see how this would work without seriously cropping the top/bottom off the frame?
Just went to the Barco Escape site to see how many cinemas are now equipped with that system, but apparently it was discontinued as of February 2018!
“CJ 4DPLEX has announced today a partnership with Cineworld Group to open 100 ScreenX locations at its theatres in the next few years. This agreement, which marks a major milestone for both companies, will include installing the multi-projection cinematic system in 10 different countries: U.S., U.K., Israel and seven other European countries.”
What I assume to be the same (or at least certainly similar) video of various premiere events shown on the displays on the right wall adjacent to the LSQ entrance, proclaiming it to be “The home of the stars” and “The premiere destination in London’s West End,” as noted in my post dated July 24th 2018, is available via YouTube—Cineworld Leicester Square – “Discover the Home of the Stars”.
(I can only assume that whoever was responsible for the footage of the LSQ foyer/lobby areas was not aware of the extreme irony of (IMO incompetently!) using a “cinéma vérité” shooting style given the “subject” is showcasing the glitzy interior, rather than, say, POV disorientation in a frenetic sequence? At any rate, if the operator could actually hold the camera still and not fiddle with the zoom…! Still, good that Cineworld are clearly eager to promote LSQ as a flagship venue…)
It would seem not only did the idea to have two IMPACT auditoria whilst under Empire Cinemas ownership get dropped at some stage…
Looking at the photo uploaded by SteveAWOL described as “Superscreen 2,” given that this has 9 rows of seats, with >20 seats/row visible—so I assume this is in fact Screen 3—with the photo taken prior to the front row seating being installed either side of the disabled bays?
It is clear from this photo that an Atmos sound system was installed as overheads are clearly visible; the seating is the same Seating Concepts “Empire” model as used in other Empire Cinemas' sites, and other decorative features also follow Empire Cinemas' current house style. I assume the main change resulting from Cineworld’s acquisition was the “star logo” signs and lack of horizontal strips on the sidewalls, and perhaps alterations to the ceiling “recesses” for the overheads, including the addition of red coloured concealed lighting; these would be an easy enough change if the auditorium was at a late stage of development at the time of acquisition.
So, it looks like the second IMPACT auditorium does in fact “exist,” just not branded/priced as a PLF screen. ;–) (Albeit no idea if there’s a dual projection system installed?)
Also, there are no leather recliner seats at this cinema. Which, unless I am mistaken, is another attraction of IMPACT Luxe auditoria?
Both IMPACT auditoria at Empire Ipswich feature reclining seats and double sofas. The LUXE is actually bigger in terms of seat count and screen size than the BLUE; ditto Sutton (albeit they are closer in size.)
There are no other Empire Cinemas venues which feature two IMPACT screens.
Keep in mind that “supersized” seats are a relatively recent development in the UK, and Empire Ipswich opened last year and Empire Sutton re-opened post-refurbishment this year; I suspect IMPACT “LUXE” is simply branding in line with other operators.
(Incidentally, I think high quality leatherette is used rather than leather, which might not perform well given the wear and tear it would be subjected to.)
Usually the only way to find out this information is to go online to the bookings page and work your way through all of the movies and all of the separate performances
Cineworld really ought to add auditorium information to their website. Fortunately, it only took a couple of minutes of clicking around to find a performance programmed for Screen 3—which, compared to the amount of time research takes for some of my posts, is neither here nor there. ;–)
Can’t imagine that got changed after this screen was opened to the public unless the seats got changed adding more legroom which would be the only explanation for a number of rows to be removed.
Doesn’t look like it based on the above-linked photo?
(not 24,766 which obviously is a typo otherwise would surely make this the highest number of seats of any cinema multiplex in the world!)
Oops—almost by an order of magnitude!
Kinepolis Brussels is listed as having 7500 seats on Cinema Treasures, although I wouldn’t be surprised if the seat count has been lowered subsequent to that figure being posted. Off the top of my head, that’s the largest seat count I’ve seen of any multiplex.
Screen 3 was originally to be an identical version of Screen 2 (IMPACT: Blue) which has 185 seats. Cineworld obviously rebranded Screen 2 to Superscreen. Screen 3 however is not a Superscreen.
Looking at the booking pages on Cineworld’s site (if I haven’t miscounted!):
Screen 2 (Superscreen) – 11 rows of seats, max. 20 seats/row, total = 185 + 5 disabled.
Screen 3 – 10 rows of seats, max. 30 seats/row, total = 272 + 6 disabled.
(Today’s 20:30 performance of “Ant-Man and the Wasp” is in Screen 3.)
Trying to think of cinemas which have two literally (internally) identical auditoria?
The only one I can think of is Screens 5 and 7 in Vue West End, where they are vertically stacked; you can overlay the plans of on top of each other. The only difference is that the splay wall fire exits either side of the screen are a bit further forward in Screen 5. Otherwise, the only difference is the differently arranged sidewall decorative LED strips.
(Oddly enough they had slightly different seat counts before the 2017 refurbishment.)
Were any changes made to the IMPACT Blue auditorium post-Cineworld acquisition? It’s not clear whether the Screen 3 fit-out was as specified by Empire or if Cineworld made changes?
(Reply con’d):
Everything is more or less on one (ground) level with the exception of a few steps into some of the smaller screens.
(Thanks to anunfortunateevent for uploading numerous photos of this cinema.)
I am always interested to learn more about cinemas.
OK, I shall start adding floor area information, starting with Vue West End. :–)
On the subject of auditoria sizes and shapes, in an ideal world what are the best proportions for IMAX and non-IMAX screens?
Yikes, that’s a difficult question!
Ideally the content should be created, e.g. framed, so that it’s designed for the target relative viewing distance.
“Classic” cinemas layouts are perhaps 1.5-2x screen distance away, plus given a “scope” ratio screen, achieve far less than the vertical angle implied by the basic IMAX criteria (centre seat of last row no more than the screen width away from the centre of the screen.)
My bias is towards sitting closer to the screen, so IMAX criteria would seem to be fairly optimum to create an “immersive” experience extending well into peripheral vision (ignoring “VR” content and other IMO misguided attempts to “break the fourth wall.”)
Acoustics need to be considered—the obvious “solution” (!) would be to build the auditorium within an anechoic chamber somewhat larger than the screen width/height with “floating” stretched fabric walls/ceiling used to form false ceilings and walls.
It would have one luxurious seat on mechanically raised platform accessed via a catwalk over the anechoic chamber material below, which would otherwise by hidden with more “floating” stretched fabric to form a false floor.
Mid to high frequency sections would be strongly directional dispersion-wise, with the single seat on axis. The seating position could be set to 0.5x screen width as default, but as well as being vertically moveable, would also be moveable forwards and backwards, to allow sitting closer or further away from the screen; the angle of the mid/high frequency sections would be automatically altered to match the seating position (and time/level alignment also altered automatically.)
Another option would be a wavefield synthesis-based audio system.
Naturally, it would have a colour-changing lighting system using cold cathode (neon) strips, à la the old Empire 1. ;–)
Hadn’t really noticed that the large sheltered entrance to this cinema looks to be empty inside. The glass area certainly isn’t to allow daylight into the foyer area as it’s artificial light only inside and there’s not much of that!
Do you mean that it looks empty from outside?
Can’t remember the layout of what it was like back then. I’m guessing from the planning application that you linked to that four auditoria from the original site layout were sold and changed into one or more restaurants which now exist on either side of the cinema as you face the entrance from the car park. Then the cinema was extended further back within the complex.
(N.B. Seems to be some minor changes in a further “non-material amendment” application in relation to floor levels and bin area.)
According to the plans:
The existing two nightclubs (“Lava”/“Ignite”), situated to the right of the cinema’s main entrance, were converted to 5 new restaurant units.
“JJ’s Bar” to the right of the cinema’s main entrance was converted to restaurant use (currently a Frankie & Benny’s.)
The bowling alley behind the two nightclubs was converted to cinema use.
The four screens on the left side of the cinema’s main entrance were converted to restaurant use; external openings and new finishes, including wooden (“western red cedar”) cladding, added to NW elevation (i.e. the external wall if one approached the cinema’s main entrance, turned left instead of entering, and then right.)
Pizza Hut to the left side of the cinema’s main entrance is currently a Prezzo (no idea if unit expanded into the space formerly occupied by the cinema.)
Remaining area previously housing an “Aqua Splash” pool, ice rink, and green bowls reconfigured, and decorative changes to the entire main frontage (including removal of cold cathode/neon signage! :–()
“Following the acquisition of an additional 35000sq ft of space, construction and fit out of Phase 1 (9 of the 17 NEW screens) is well under way and on track to open on Friday 9th October. At which point the current 8 Screens will close and be demolished.”
I guess this actually means that 4 screens were converted to restaurant use, and the area occupied by the other 4 was reuse to house new auditoria?
Incidentally, the above link states the IMAX screen size to be “18.3m x 10m” (=60ft. x 32.8ft.)
Using Google Earth’s “Historical Imagery” function for aerial photo views, the building footprint today is essentially the same as it was in 1999. The two large rooftop chiller units above the cinema, presumably located above the (escape?) corridor between former Auditoria 7/8 and former Auditorium 6(/back of house areas behind former Auditorium 5,) seem to have been replaced with numerous smaller units.
(As an aside, air conditioning plant tends to be located above corridors, and not above auditoria, to help prevent structurally transmitted vibration from being audible in the auditoria.)
Thanks for the detailed information and links. ;o)
You’re welcome. :–)
Didn’t realise that non-IMAX cameras could be used for scenes that are shown as 1.43:1 or 1.9:1 ratio on IMAX screens.
The only strict criteria I’m aware of is that, for non-IMAX content, IMAX Digital systems will only operate in a “crippled” mode, e.g. only one of the two projector (no 3D) is used. This includes non-IMAX trailers, advertising, etc. before an IMAX main feature, and with an IMAX with Laser projection system, this can be seen by putting on the supplied 3D glasses; one eye is blanked out. ;–)
I suspect 1.43:1 scenes would be shot on 15perf IMAX, e.g. “Dunkirk.”
IMAX themselves now offer digital cameras (1.9:1 ratio); however, if the objective is to achieve “IMAX” quality, then there are various options available—and the technology is developing at a rapid pace!
When the “Mission: Impossible – Fallout” picture “opened up” to 1.9:1, I actually said to myself “wow… this is… IMAX.”
It really is an exciting time for “large format” content as astonishing results are now possible, and things are only going to get better. :–)
Lucy is judged by many to be a reference quality 4K UHD movie.
Interesting! I shall have to acquire a copy. :–)
The clarity and detail, as demonstrated by e.g. the close shots of Morgan Freeman’s face, is certainly startling.
Would you happen to know the size of the current 17-screen Cineworld, Hemel Hempstead?
No—although Cinema Treasures' description mentions the acquisition of “35,000sq.ft.” when Empire Cinemas redeveloped this location. (I’m slightly confused, as a planning application dated 2015 only mentions the removal of four auditoria?)
Obviously, this wouldn’t necessarily be equal to the gross area of the cinema demise, not least since there are likely to be multiple levels (e.g. booths)—but I guess that’s a reasonable ballpark figure for a “flat” layout of auditoria—though not sure what the layout is at Cineworld Hemel Hempstead?
Also, would you happen to know of any other multiplexes in the UK that are of a similar size (40,000 sq ft)?
Not off the top of my head, but (+/– say ~10%) it’s a pretty typical size—there really would be too many to list?!
To put these sort of dimensions into some sort of context, a typical retail park unit occupied by PC World (not the “Currys PC World Megastore” format) would perhaps be something like 15,000-20,000sq.ft—so you could imagine that ~40,000sq.ft. wouldn’t be unusual for a multiplex?
Overall area figures are interesting—well, at least for those possessing a similar temperament to myself (if anyone?—LOL)—but I think what you really want to know is the width, height and depth of the particular auditoria (and perhaps foyers, lobbies, etc.) that have captured your attention?
(If you are interested, I have some “published” figures and estimates which I could post, but it might be better if I did this on the respective pages for each cinema.)
“Lucy: The IMAX Experience will be released in select international IMAX theatres only.”
I actually rather enjoyed “Lucy,” even if the premise and execution was absurd. Fantastic picture quality also.
I ended up seeing it twice at the LSQ IMAX, as I wanted a friend to experience a screening in a “real cinema,” the Orange/EE Wednesdays promotion was still available (albeit for IMAX screens there was a modest uplift charge for the “free” ticket), and I was quite happy to watch “Lucy” again.
Neither screening was terribly busy, and IIRC, on my second visit, I had a brief conversation with a member of staff, who when asked how the IMAX screen was doing, looked rather sheepish and said that “it is… building awareness” and “it is a success.”
To be fair to IMAX/Empire Cinemas, the “new” IMAX sites referenced in the above-linked press release didn’t suffer from the same problem as LSQ under Empire Cinemas, including the inability to get bookings of the biggest releases.
Of course, it is now very much a success, and given the very high grosses achieved over at the BFI London IMAX, as well as the Central London prices, I wouldn’t be surprised if for certain releases it is one of the highest grossing IMAX venues on an international basis.
Was the presentation of Mission: Impossible – Fallout in IMAX 3D?
Yes it was; as usual, when films are programmed for both the IMAX and Superscreen at LSQ, the IMAX shows the 3D version, and the Superscreen the 2D version.
Sadly, didn’t manage to and it has today been replaced by Ant-Man and the Wasp.
Exactly, that’s why I went there at the last minute when I found myself in a location with just enough time to get there a few minutes before the auditorium doors were open. :–) I had thought about seeing it in the Superscreen, actually, but it was heavily booked—and I had better acquire an Unlimited card prior to the next Superscreen visit!
Be interested to hear your comments on the 3D effect considering this was a post-production conversion, as are most movies, and not natively shot in 3D.
In the “non-IMAX” scenes, the 3D conversion was, for the most part, dreadful—“cardboard cut-out” look and constrained by the general shallow depth of field (i.e. most objects not in focus, including close shots of adjacent actors) of the photography—an aesthetic choice that doesn’t work well for 3D. The 3D in these scenes, however, is relatively subtle.
3D was very effective in the “full height” scenes, though I don’t think mostly “in your face,” either.
I like 3D, but I wouldn’t be overly concerned about only having seen it theatrically in 2D.
I enjoyed the movie and even rewatched all of the other five movies in the franchise before and after this latest instalment in the franchise.
I really need to realise that franchise films these days require having some knowledge of the backstory set in previous installments, and I’d probably do well read a plot summary beforehand. In “fast-paced” films, I tend to miss key exposition in the first act as I’m distracted by assessing picture/sound quality and looking around the auditorium. :–(
The scenes in Kashmir during the final act, were they the only ones filmed using IMAX cameras and opened up to fill the whole screen?
I think they were the only 1.9:1 ratio scenes; AFAIK they weren’t shot on IMAX cameras but rather using Panavision Millennium DXLs with Primo 70 series lenses. These are so-called large format cameras boasting a 40.96mm wide sensor (c.f. 24mm for “35mm” format.)
I had expected the Burf Khalifa scene in Ghost Protocol to have been filmed in IMAX but alas I don’t believe it was? It certainly isn’t listed on the wiki list of movies filmed using IMAX cameras.
No other details have yet been released with regards to the opening date of the new Cineworld 9-screen cinema [at the expanded intu Watford] which includes an IMAX screen.
According to a July 2018 update from intu, three months were left until opening, with units being handed over to retailers for fit-out:
“The first unit to open will be the 4-storey Debenhams on September 27th, with lots of other great brands opening shortly after.”
Not sure if this relates to the timeframe for the cinema, but seems reasonable to assume around October or if there is slippage, November. Then again, depending on project sequencing, if “handover” means from shell/core only then the cinema “fit-out” is presumably rather more involved than the average retail unit.
Zappomatic:
The fabric coverings sure look (and measure in Photoshop!) purple as shown in the photo on Chapman Taylor’s site, with blue wall carpet on the vomitory walls and lower sidewalls.
The lighting features on the sidewalls are exactly the same as are/were (at least on opening) fitted to the IMPACT/Superscreen in Basildon, and can also be seen in an Eomac Case Study. It would have been better if the wall and stadia steps carpets had been replaced, though.
Slightly odd that Cineworld have left bits and pieces untouched, particularly as this must be one of their premiere sites.
Incidentally, during the period when the “dome” and environs were operating as the “Millennium Experience” exhibition, there was a Sky-sponsored cinema in a temporary building adjacent to the dome:
ES Global Solutions – Skyscape.
Skyscape – Promotional Video.
I did visit the “Millennium Experience” in 2000, although I don’t remember visiting Skyscape—frankly it was all so dire that I was quite glad to get out of there ASAP!
I do wonder why the “Sky Superscreen” was opened as a disproportionately large auditorium by today’s standards, unless it actually was part of the original “Millennium Experience” structures built inside the “dome”?
Zappomatic: Thanks for the photos, your comprehensive observations of the ScreenX auditorium and update on the O2 “Project Loop” construction.
I am minded to visit today on the way back from dropping someone off at Heathrow, but even the last performance is heavily booked. Argh!
Hmm, were these there before?
Yikes—that’s very jarring. I imagine that the hardware/software to split the picture over all those projectors adds a bit of lag.
Addendum to last post: If they’re using the Armstrong Tectum product mentioned in a linked interview I previously posted on the LSQ page, then based on Armstrong’s product literature then perhaps they are using pre-fabricated panels.
LARGE_screen_format: Indeed! I’ll probably visit myself next week…
Looking at a photo of the ScreenX auditorium, it looks like the sidewalls are indeed stretched fabric, as the “seams” between fabric sections (where the fabric meets the profiles to which it’s attached) are visible.
Oddly, these appear to be rectangular sections of fabric, as both vertical and horizontal “seams” are visible, whereas usually the fabric width would relate to horizontal “seams”—Eomac recommends 168cm “usable”—and the fabric length would far exceed this thus requiring fewer vertical “seams.”
The fabric sections also appear not to be entirely colour matched, either.
LARGE_screen_format: The £35m figure is for the entire “Project Loop-Leisure and Cinema Extension” scheme, which also includes an indoor “trampoline park.” I assume Cineworld will be taking a lease on the space and their primary upfront capital cost will be for the fit-out.
As shown on the above-linked planning drawings, the largest auditorium will have an ~18m (~59ft.) wall-to-wall screen, with a centreline screen to last row distance of ~24m (~80ft.); so the last row will be ~1.35x screen width from the screen. (First row ~0.4x screen width from screen in centreline.)
Thus there will be plenty of “immersive” seating positions, and it will be interesting to see if Atmos is installed also.
(FYI, this auditorium is about ~29m deep, for a total area of ~530sq.m. (~5700sq.ft.))
The scheme for the “Leisure and Cinema Extension” is known as “Project Loop.”
McLaren Group – Topping Out Ceremony on Project Loop at The O2 – July 2018.
Project cost according to this page is £35m. (Presumably excluding fit-out.)
Plans for the extension are available in a planning application dated July 2016, within the “All drawings” document.
1073sq.m. (~11500sq.ft.) (!) of new foyer space (at “Level 02”) will be provided to the “right”* of the existing, via 6 steps due to a slight floor level change, from which (the screen end of) 5 new auditoria can be accessed.
(*Relative to the entrance up escalator from “Level 00,” aka “ground level” of The O2.)
An additional “VIP” foyer, 365sq.m. (~3900sq.ft.) in floor area, will be provided off of this new foyer area, with stairs up to corridors at “Level 03” leading to 3 new auditoria situated above the new “Level 02” foyer areas.
(There is also a lift, presumably for disabled access, which is shared between the “extended” and “VIP” foyers, and an additional lobby at “Level 04” providing access to the rear of 5 auditoria accessible from the extended foyer area at “Level 02.”)
Note that whilst these drawings are marked as originating from CallisonRTKL, Chapman Taylor are the “fit-out and final delivery” architects.
According to a press release from The O2, the cinema extension (50,000sq.ft.) is an anchor to within a 110,000sq.ft. development scheduled to open in Q1 2019. A new 4DX auditorium within the extension is also mentioned.
(N.B. Registration is required to view the release on The O2’s site, but it seems to have been posted word-for-word elsewhere.)
LARGE_screen_format: Squaremeal – Cineworld O2 Greenwich.
List of seating capacities for all existent (pre-extension) auditoria.
Would not think it would be in the extension as the completion date isn’t until later this year, and IIRC from the plans (which for some reason I don’t seem to have provided a link to here, and I’m currently too tired to trawl around clunky local authority planning application databases!) the access to those auditoria will be via extended foyer/lobby areas.
E-mail received from Cineworld yesterday:
“We’re excited to announce that ScreenX has opened at Cineworld O2!
“ScreenX is the world’s first multi-projection cinema technology expanding the traditional cinema screen to the side auditorium walls, creating a 270-degree viewing experience. Plus, if you’re an Unlimited customer you can enjoy ScreenX for only £3!”
Canada Water Masterplan – Planning Application.
The application (dated as received 11th May 2018) is for the total redevelopment of an area which includes (but is not limited to) the existing Surrey Quays Shopping Centre and Leisure Park, with new units for retail, leisure, residential and other uses.
The proposals include the demolition and replacement of the existing cinema, although in relation to this the above linked application is outline only, being a detailed application only in respect of Phase 1 (which does not include the new cinema.)
Armstrong Project Gallery – Uttoxeter Cinema and Bowling Complex – Photos and Armstrong products used.
LARGE_screen_format:
Neither am I!
It would extend further into the audience’s horizontal peripheral vision than IMAX — 270°, as you quote, is their advertised claim, vs. maximum 120° for an IMAX conforming to criteria — and those areas are used by the human brain for motion awareness…
I can’t see it working well in terms of producing a geometrically undistorted picture, and also consistent illumination, including across seating positions?
Plus keeping all the projectors properly aligned and calibrated?
(Of course, the old OMNIMAX system could achieve “wider than IMAX” images.)
Adding ScreenX to existing 4DX auditoria seems likely? (Given the above) the system would seem to work well in tandem with the motion seating.
Filmmaker Magazine – October 2013 – “Introducing Screen X, Cinema in 270 Degrees” – Interview with Paul Kim, “Lead Producer of ScreenX”.
“[Shooting Screen X involves a] three cameras [setup], a center camera and two peripheral cameras. The cameras – we used three RED Epics [for the South Korean film “The X”] – are hooked up onto a rig that allows you to shoot simultaneously in three directions at the same time.”
Apparently, using white screens doesn’t work, and at the time of the interview, they were using a “very cool dark grey”:
“The reason white screens don’t work is that you are now projecting onto the walls itself, that is still a light source and it reflects off the main screen and washes off on the main screen. This is a color we came upon because it absorbs light and it doesn’t reflect onto the main screen and at the same time it retrains most of the contrast and the colors. We are still experimenting with different colors.”
Kim mentions that the CJ Group’s cinema subsidary CGV are using Tectum fabric covered walls. I’m not clear from the article if the fabric supplied with this system is used as the sidewall screen material.
Also: “We have developed a term called FSR, which is Front Side Ratio, so the front of the screen to how long the side of the theater is. Ideally it’s about 1.5 to 1.8. We don’t like it to be any longer than that and we don’t like it to be any shorter.” He goes on to say that “180 to 230 seats is ideal.”
Sounds like an interesting system but whilst 4DX “works” as a optional “gimmick” that’s added late in post, I’d question the long term viability of ScreenX as a specialist format given that it would seem to require considerable additional production costs and upfront commitment?
Adding ScreenX to the LSQ 4DX would seem to be a non-starter—unless the columns are allowed to “interrupt” the sidewall images? With the 4DX conversion already pushing the limit of the cinema’s demised area in the basement of 1-4 Leicester Square, not sure there’s room for all the extra projectors, either.
Meanwhile, vendors continue to push LED screens to replace projection in cinemas.
You might be interested in an article published by Hollywood Reporter, which also notes the apparent exasperation of Spielberg of Nolan and Spielberg at the prospect of direct view display systems in theatres.
According to this article, the first Samsung Onyx LED display system in the US was installed at Pacific Theatres Winnetka in Chatsworth, CA—in the suburbanised San Fernando Valley area ~15 miles NW of Hollywood—with “Ready Player One” being the first programmed feature.
LARGE_screen_format: Many thanks for counting all the seats. :–)
Regarding the IMAX seat count mystery, having a look at the seating diagram on the booking page for a 3D performance of “Ant-Man and the Wasp” in the IMAX, it is noticeable that rows A and B are missing.
In the seating diagram for a 2D performance of the same in the IMAX, rows A and B reappear, as do 24 missing side seats in rows C-F.
For 2D IMAX performances, my count of the seats comes to 275 + 4 disabled.
Total for the complex based on your count = 2053 + 43 disabled.
CJ 4DPLEX is South Korean… and growth markets… China is now the world’s largest market by box office…
World’s First 4DX with Screen X — includes selected footage of the fit-out, and the 4DX/ScreenX system in use.
Wonder how much ScreenX content is available? “Ant-Man and the Wasp” has been released in this format, but I can’t see how this would work without seriously cropping the top/bottom off the frame?
Just went to the Barco Escape site to see how many cinemas are now equipped with that system, but apparently it was discontinued as of February 2018!
LARGE_screen_format: Thank you for posting that!
Press release-14th June 2018.
“CJ 4DPLEX has announced today a partnership with Cineworld Group to open 100 ScreenX locations at its theatres in the next few years. This agreement, which marks a major milestone for both companies, will include installing the multi-projection cinematic system in 10 different countries: U.S., U.K., Israel and seven other European countries.”
Image Technique – Digital Signage & AV Solutions – Cineworld Cinemas – Large Scale Video Walls.
The curved screen at the top of the vestibule is shown in a photo, so presumably the LED modules were supplied and fitted by them.
As well as Cineworld, they have also been involved with signage for Empire Cinemas, Odeon and Vue.
A “full resolution” (4K) JPEG file of this photo can be downloaded.
What I assume to be the same (or at least certainly similar) video of various premiere events shown on the displays on the right wall adjacent to the LSQ entrance, proclaiming it to be “The home of the stars” and “The premiere destination in London’s West End,” as noted in my post dated July 24th 2018, is available via YouTube—Cineworld Leicester Square – “Discover the Home of the Stars”.
(I can only assume that whoever was responsible for the footage of the LSQ foyer/lobby areas was not aware of the extreme irony of (IMO incompetently!) using a “cinéma vérité” shooting style given the “subject” is showcasing the glitzy interior, rather than, say, POV disorientation in a frenetic sequence? At any rate, if the operator could actually hold the camera still and not fiddle with the zoom…! Still, good that Cineworld are clearly eager to promote LSQ as a flagship venue…)
LARGE_screen_format:
Looking at the photo uploaded by SteveAWOL described as “Superscreen 2,” given that this has 9 rows of seats, with >20 seats/row visible—so I assume this is in fact Screen 3—with the photo taken prior to the front row seating being installed either side of the disabled bays?
It is clear from this photo that an Atmos sound system was installed as overheads are clearly visible; the seating is the same Seating Concepts “Empire” model as used in other Empire Cinemas' sites, and other decorative features also follow Empire Cinemas' current house style. I assume the main change resulting from Cineworld’s acquisition was the “star logo” signs and lack of horizontal strips on the sidewalls, and perhaps alterations to the ceiling “recesses” for the overheads, including the addition of red coloured concealed lighting; these would be an easy enough change if the auditorium was at a late stage of development at the time of acquisition.
So, it looks like the second IMPACT auditorium does in fact “exist,” just not branded/priced as a PLF screen. ;–) (Albeit no idea if there’s a dual projection system installed?)
Both IMPACT auditoria at Empire Ipswich feature reclining seats and double sofas. The LUXE is actually bigger in terms of seat count and screen size than the BLUE; ditto Sutton (albeit they are closer in size.)
There are no other Empire Cinemas venues which feature two IMPACT screens.
Keep in mind that “supersized” seats are a relatively recent development in the UK, and Empire Ipswich opened last year and Empire Sutton re-opened post-refurbishment this year; I suspect IMPACT “LUXE” is simply branding in line with other operators.
(Incidentally, I think high quality leatherette is used rather than leather, which might not perform well given the wear and tear it would be subjected to.)
Cineworld really ought to add auditorium information to their website. Fortunately, it only took a couple of minutes of clicking around to find a performance programmed for Screen 3—which, compared to the amount of time research takes for some of my posts, is neither here nor there. ;–)
Doesn’t look like it based on the above-linked photo?
Oops—almost by an order of magnitude!
Kinepolis Brussels is listed as having 7500 seats on Cinema Treasures, although I wouldn’t be surprised if the seat count has been lowered subsequent to that figure being posted. Off the top of my head, that’s the largest seat count I’ve seen of any multiplex.
Maybe the “bed bug” count in one of the NYC ‘plexes is in the 10s of thousands. ;–)
LARGE_screen_format:
Looking at the booking pages on Cineworld’s site (if I haven’t miscounted!):
Screen 2 (Superscreen) – 11 rows of seats, max. 20 seats/row, total = 185 + 5 disabled.
Screen 3 – 10 rows of seats, max. 30 seats/row, total = 272 + 6 disabled.
(Today’s 20:30 performance of “Ant-Man and the Wasp” is in Screen 3.)
LARGE_screen_format:
Trying to think of cinemas which have two literally (internally) identical auditoria?
The only one I can think of is Screens 5 and 7 in Vue West End, where they are vertically stacked; you can overlay the plans of on top of each other. The only difference is that the splay wall fire exits either side of the screen are a bit further forward in Screen 5. Otherwise, the only difference is the differently arranged sidewall decorative LED strips.
(Oddly enough they had slightly different seat counts before the 2017 refurbishment.)
Were any changes made to the IMPACT Blue auditorium post-Cineworld acquisition? It’s not clear whether the Screen 3 fit-out was as specified by Empire or if Cineworld made changes?
(Reply con’d):
http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/24766/photos/197756 shows a sign with “UPPER” and “LOWER” levels marked on it?
(Thanks to anunfortunateevent for uploading numerous photos of this cinema.)
OK, I shall start adding floor area information, starting with Vue West End. :–)
Yikes, that’s a difficult question!
Ideally the content should be created, e.g. framed, so that it’s designed for the target relative viewing distance.
“Classic” cinemas layouts are perhaps 1.5-2x screen distance away, plus given a “scope” ratio screen, achieve far less than the vertical angle implied by the basic IMAX criteria (centre seat of last row no more than the screen width away from the centre of the screen.)
My bias is towards sitting closer to the screen, so IMAX criteria would seem to be fairly optimum to create an “immersive” experience extending well into peripheral vision (ignoring “VR” content and other IMO misguided attempts to “break the fourth wall.”)
Acoustics need to be considered—the obvious “solution” (!) would be to build the auditorium within an anechoic chamber somewhat larger than the screen width/height with “floating” stretched fabric walls/ceiling used to form false ceilings and walls.
It would have one luxurious seat on mechanically raised platform accessed via a catwalk over the anechoic chamber material below, which would otherwise by hidden with more “floating” stretched fabric to form a false floor.
Mid to high frequency sections would be strongly directional dispersion-wise, with the single seat on axis. The seating position could be set to 0.5x screen width as default, but as well as being vertically moveable, would also be moveable forwards and backwards, to allow sitting closer or further away from the screen; the angle of the mid/high frequency sections would be automatically altered to match the seating position (and time/level alignment also altered automatically.)
Another option would be a wavefield synthesis-based audio system.
Naturally, it would have a colour-changing lighting system using cold cathode (neon) strips, à la the old Empire 1. ;–)
LARGE_screen_format:
Do you mean that it looks empty from outside?
Here’s what I’ve found so far:
Change of use planning application.
(N.B. Seems to be some minor changes in a further “non-material amendment” application in relation to floor levels and bin area.)
According to the plans:
Empire Cinemas – Hemel Hempstead Development Update-August 2015.
To quote:
“Following the acquisition of an additional 35000sq ft of space, construction and fit out of Phase 1 (9 of the 17 NEW screens) is well under way and on track to open on Friday 9th October. At which point the current 8 Screens will close and be demolished.”
I guess this actually means that 4 screens were converted to restaurant use, and the area occupied by the other 4 was reuse to house new auditoria?
Incidentally, the above link states the IMAX screen size to be “18.3m x 10m” (=60ft. x 32.8ft.)
Using Google Earth’s “Historical Imagery” function for aerial photo views, the building footprint today is essentially the same as it was in 1999. The two large rooftop chiller units above the cinema, presumably located above the (escape?) corridor between former Auditoria 7/8 and former Auditorium 6(/back of house areas behind former Auditorium 5,) seem to have been replaced with numerous smaller units.
(As an aside, air conditioning plant tends to be located above corridors, and not above auditoria, to help prevent structurally transmitted vibration from being audible in the auditoria.)
Reply to be continued…
Nice! :–)
LARGE_screen_format:
You’re welcome. :–)
The only strict criteria I’m aware of is that, for non-IMAX content, IMAX Digital systems will only operate in a “crippled” mode, e.g. only one of the two projector (no 3D) is used. This includes non-IMAX trailers, advertising, etc. before an IMAX main feature, and with an IMAX with Laser projection system, this can be seen by putting on the supplied 3D glasses; one eye is blanked out. ;–)
I suspect 1.43:1 scenes would be shot on 15perf IMAX, e.g. “Dunkirk.”
IMAX themselves now offer digital cameras (1.9:1 ratio); however, if the objective is to achieve “IMAX” quality, then there are various options available—and the technology is developing at a rapid pace!
When the “Mission: Impossible – Fallout” picture “opened up” to 1.9:1, I actually said to myself “wow… this is… IMAX.”
It really is an exciting time for “large format” content as astonishing results are now possible, and things are only going to get better. :–)
Interesting! I shall have to acquire a copy. :–)
The clarity and detail, as demonstrated by e.g. the close shots of Morgan Freeman’s face, is certainly startling.
LARGE_screen_format:
No—although Cinema Treasures' description mentions the acquisition of “35,000sq.ft.” when Empire Cinemas redeveloped this location. (I’m slightly confused, as a planning application dated 2015 only mentions the removal of four auditoria?)
Looking at a planning application dated September 2016, specifically, the area marked in red on the “Site Location Plan,” the plan area is approx. 34,000sq.ft.
Obviously, this wouldn’t necessarily be equal to the gross area of the cinema demise, not least since there are likely to be multiple levels (e.g. booths)—but I guess that’s a reasonable ballpark figure for a “flat” layout of auditoria—though not sure what the layout is at Cineworld Hemel Hempstead?
Not off the top of my head, but (+/– say ~10%) it’s a pretty typical size—there really would be too many to list?!
To put these sort of dimensions into some sort of context, a typical retail park unit occupied by PC World (not the “Currys PC World Megastore” format) would perhaps be something like 15,000-20,000sq.ft—so you could imagine that ~40,000sq.ft. wouldn’t be unusual for a multiplex?
Overall area figures are interesting—well, at least for those possessing a similar temperament to myself (if anyone?—LOL)—but I think what you really want to know is the width, height and depth of the particular auditoria (and perhaps foyers, lobbies, etc.) that have captured your attention?
(If you are interested, I have some “published” figures and estimates which I could post, but it might be better if I did this on the respective pages for each cinema.)
LARGE_screen_format:
Interesting. I suspect it’s a regurgitated press release, and sure enough, it is:
Empire Cinemas Expands IMAX Commitment with Three-Theatre Deal in England.
From IMAX – Lucy:
“Lucy: The IMAX Experience will be released in select international IMAX theatres only.”
I actually rather enjoyed “Lucy,” even if the premise and execution was absurd. Fantastic picture quality also.
I ended up seeing it twice at the LSQ IMAX, as I wanted a friend to experience a screening in a “real cinema,” the Orange/EE Wednesdays promotion was still available (albeit for IMAX screens there was a modest uplift charge for the “free” ticket), and I was quite happy to watch “Lucy” again.
Neither screening was terribly busy, and IIRC, on my second visit, I had a brief conversation with a member of staff, who when asked how the IMAX screen was doing, looked rather sheepish and said that “it is… building awareness” and “it is a success.”
To be fair to IMAX/Empire Cinemas, the “new” IMAX sites referenced in the above-linked press release didn’t suffer from the same problem as LSQ under Empire Cinemas, including the inability to get bookings of the biggest releases.
Of course, it is now very much a success, and given the very high grosses achieved over at the BFI London IMAX, as well as the Central London prices, I wouldn’t be surprised if for certain releases it is one of the highest grossing IMAX venues on an international basis.
LARGE_screen_format:
Yes it was; as usual, when films are programmed for both the IMAX and Superscreen at LSQ, the IMAX shows the 3D version, and the Superscreen the 2D version.
Exactly, that’s why I went there at the last minute when I found myself in a location with just enough time to get there a few minutes before the auditorium doors were open. :–) I had thought about seeing it in the Superscreen, actually, but it was heavily booked—and I had better acquire an Unlimited card prior to the next Superscreen visit!
In the “non-IMAX” scenes, the 3D conversion was, for the most part, dreadful—“cardboard cut-out” look and constrained by the general shallow depth of field (i.e. most objects not in focus, including close shots of adjacent actors) of the photography—an aesthetic choice that doesn’t work well for 3D. The 3D in these scenes, however, is relatively subtle.
3D was very effective in the “full height” scenes, though I don’t think mostly “in your face,” either.
I like 3D, but I wouldn’t be overly concerned about only having seen it theatrically in 2D.
I really need to realise that franchise films these days require having some knowledge of the backstory set in previous installments, and I’d probably do well read a plot summary beforehand. In “fast-paced” films, I tend to miss key exposition in the first act as I’m distracted by assessing picture/sound quality and looking around the auditorium. :–(
I think they were the only 1.9:1 ratio scenes; AFAIK they weren’t shot on IMAX cameras but rather using Panavision Millennium DXLs with Primo 70 series lenses. These are so-called large format cameras boasting a 40.96mm wide sensor (c.f. 24mm for “35mm” format.)
You might find this video to be of interest:
Panavision – DXL2: A Wider Gamut.
65mm IMAX film cameras certainly were used…
Photo of Director Brad Bird and IMAX camera rig.
According to a July 2018 update from intu, three months were left until opening, with units being handed over to retailers for fit-out:
“The first unit to open will be the 4-storey Debenhams on September 27th, with lots of other great brands opening shortly after.”
Not sure if this relates to the timeframe for the cinema, but seems reasonable to assume around October or if there is slippage, November. Then again, depending on project sequencing, if “handover” means from shell/core only then the cinema “fit-out” is presumably rather more involved than the average retail unit.