Interesting, doesn’t seem to be something that appears among Eomac’s sample photos, but a quick Google search leads to a number of suppliers, at least one of which boasts their product yields a “seamless” finish. Wonder if they will replace the IMAX’s ceiling (though persumably not with reflective material!) as this all seems “no expense spared”…
I guess the right wall is simply painted with Perspex/acrylic strips attached?
Ceiling cove lighting looks a bit inconsistent and still annoyed by the loss of the marble-clad right wall… but… (in a positive way…)
Bl!?dy h#ll!
Ceiling above the curved wall section looks reflective?
(Odd coincidence that the title of films screened seem to reflect the occurrence of the most major works at the Cineworld/Empire LSQ: “Big Bad Wolves,” “Edge of Tomorrow,” and now “Rampage”—although I suppose that one should have coincided with the foyer strip-out!)
I can only assume it’s in relation to an opening event for the 4DX, given that the date is around the time of the 4DX opening, and it seems unlikely to be for a premiere of an Indian movie titled “2.0”!
I look forward to seeing the finished result but it seems to be taking what was once a rather stale, dated space into something more befitting of its location.
Now now, excepting that it needed a lot of tidying up, I’m sure I’m not the only one who liked the old foyer! ;–)
(i.e. Domes/fibre optic starfield lighting/red flocking/marble wall panels (when not covered over with advertising!)/carpet.)
That reminds me—wonder what’s happened to the “Opened by HRH…” plaques?
Anyway, many thanks (yet again) for the update and photos. They do seem to be going to town on the refit—particularly with those “gold” panels!
Among the “junk” under the IMAX’s stadia, I can see what I’d assume to be sacks of Mapei screed, tubs of Mapei tile adhesive… and what might be boxes of tiles. New floor coming very soon, I’d imagine…
perhaps one of the contractors now has a new headboard!
PhilipWW: You’re most welcome, I’m glad to hear it’s appreciated!
IMAX don’t use the standard DCP format, they have their own extended version, IDF (IMAX Digital Format.) No idea what resolutions/frame rates are supported.
In any case, a different package would be supplied for laser venues, as the colour grading is different for “IMAX with Laser.” IMAX themselves listed 70mm IMAX, IMAX with Laser and IMAX Digital (Xenon) as the different IMAX formats “Dunkirk” was released in, and see also the IMDb Technical Specifications page for Dunkirk—notice the 1.43:1 ratio for IMAX with Laser.
The “laser” part of the projection is only the light source, DLP chips (or LCoS/SXRD in the case of Sony) are still used. Greater screen brightness, wider colour gamut (increased range of colours), and deeper blacks. On the other hand it has a number of technical challenges, hence IMAX acquired a number of patents from Kodak. The most well known is the “speckling” issue—one way IMAX ameliorates that is by attaching lots of small transducers (speakers) to the screen, which constantly slightly shake it!
I fully agree with your comments on framing and the strange design choices of so-called “large format” screens. I think the concept is, as with IMAX, to present a large wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling screen to the patron as soon as they walk into the cinema.
If one looks at a 1928 photo of the Empire Leicester Square Rebuilding Works and compares it to this part (direct link to time in video) of the The Installation of the Empire Leicester Square IMAX, looking carefully at the front of the auditorium on the left, then it seems fairly obvious that parts of the roof structure are “boxed out”—you can see the diagonal parts (I’m sure they have a name?) of the central roof truss.
So it becomes pretty obvious that the LSQ IMAX has the biggest screen size possible within the cinema’s demise. As 1.43:1 IMAX content may well be framed with 1.78:1 in mind for “home video” releases, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that the extra height could be used.
It seems odd that they’d have bothered to “jam” the screen in vertically otherwise, whilst presumably fitting in services (e.g. HVAC ducts), hanging the massive wall behind from the roof to boot, and commensurately moving up the curved parts of the ceiling to allow for sightlines.
It’s all somewhat by-the-by though really, as—because of the excellent geometry/alignment/black levels—1.9:1 content looks absolutely fine anyway. (Of course, for a screen lacking masking, if the projection can’t achieve straight and dark black edges around the picture, the picture won’t be properly framed.)
On the subject of “perfect” projection, or at least projection as good as possible under given conditions, that’s exactly what IMAX tries to do, with daily auto recalibration of picture/sound (camera and microphones in the auditorium for this), and continuous monitoring of the picture with adjustments made by IMAX’s “image enhancer” to keep everything aligned at all times, as well as remote monitoring by IMAX in Mississauga (Ontario, Canada.)
It would, of course, be reasonable to be cynical about IMAX’s claims—albeit some of the system’s details are disclosed in their patents—but at least at the Cineworld/Empire Leicester Square, it seems to work!
Zappomatic: Thank you, once again, for the comprehensive update and all of the photos, forming a very nice record of the foyer refurb.
The “gold” square panels look glitzy indeed! I had thought that they could have addressable lights, or use LED panel modules, programmed with a “glittering” pattern, so it’s a shame that they are just backlit. Wonder what they’re actually made of?
All sounding rather promising (and expensive!) with the stretched fabric ceiling.
Do you mean the carpet pattern featuring circular shapes?
Seems likely that the former Screens 4/5 will feature large reclining red seating, but not sure there’s enough space in the rest as there are already so few rows…
PhilipWW: The auditorium must be approved by IMAX, it isn’t just the equipment in the booth.
For instance, in the case of the Empire/Cineworld LSQ IMAX, some of the seats are not available for IMAX 2D presentations, and even more for IMAX 3D presentations.
Equipment-wise, the screen and surround speakers are supplied by IMAX also.
If you take a very close look at the part of IMAX’s Installation of the Empire Leicester Square IMAX video (direct link to time) where the screen is being carried into the auditorium, you’ll notice the screen was supplied by Strong/MDI.
No idea whether they make a custom product for IMAX. However, for polarisation-based 3D systems, IMAX does have their own silver spray paint system which is actually applied by a custom rig in-situ, for example:
Of course, the Empire was due to have the laser projection system installed, which uses wavelength-based 3D, i.e. slightly different RGB wavelengths for each eye, with the unwanted wavelengths filtered by the glasses, so I guess they didn’t bother with the silver coating as the screen would need to be replaced. (Ditto at the Chinese Theatre, going by the timelapse video of the IMAX conversion.)
As for aspect ratio, Empire Cinemas stated the screen size as 26.5mx15.6m (~87ft.x51ft), yielding a ratio of approx 1.7:1.
(Notice that the screen isn’t completely filled in the above linked video, as the Xenon light source IMAX projectors were installed then.)
The IMAX with Laser projection system is capable of 1.4:1 for “classic” IMAX venues, and I’m not sure whether the extra height is actually used at the Cineworld/Empire LSQ, although it did seem to be well-filled for “Dunkirk.”
It’s a somewhat moot point as most IMAX content is now maximum (or should that be minimum?) 1.9:1 anyway. The “letterboxing” occurs, of course, with many IMAX features, as not all are 1.9:1 throughout or at all.
Empire Cinemas gave the Superscreen size as 20.5mx11m (~67ft.x36ft.), or approx. 1.85:1 ratio. I’m not sure if the projectors can actually fill the screen either horizontally or vertically (haven’t been there in some time.) It is, however, equipped with dual 4K projection, moved over from the former Screen 1. (2xBarco DP4K-32B.)
Can the LSQ Superscreen be considered as a “premiere” cinema, or is does that monker only truly apply to the IMAX? I suppose we shall see what Cineworld does in due course, e.g. the former Screen 1 was equipped with 4xBarco 2K projectors for the Avatar premiere, to get adequate 3D brightness levels, early adoption of Dolby Atmos, and back in 35mm days, all the digital sound formats, etc. You’d think laser projection would be ideal for the Superscreen…
P.S. On the subject of the various 3D systems, here’s an interview with Dave Norris, former projection manager at the Empire, by Mark “I Hate 3D” Kermode. He states that the IMAX with Laser system at LSQ achieved over 12 foot-lamberts.
Coincidentally, multiplex refurbishment is the subject of several several articles in the current issue of Cinema Technology Magazine.
Under the “Further information” tab of the Building Standards (not “Building Control” in Scotland!) page you’ve linked to, the declared “Value of Work” is £3m.
The 13th screen seems to have already been refurbished:
Hmm, assuming that Screens 4 and 5 become 1 and 2, that creates a neat arrangement where, as one enters from LSQ, Screens 1-3 are to the left, and 5-7 are up the stairs to the right.
It would perhaps make more sense if the 4DX was Screen 1. However, that would mean the former Screen 6 would be numbered Screen 4, potentially risking annoyed patrons for the 4DX going all the way down the stairs and up again, only to find themselves in the former Screen 6, and then being sent down the stairs again to get to the 4DX!
I suppose the 4DX won’t be signed “Screen 4” anyway, so in practice it should appear to be a sensible arrangement.
PhilipWW: The IMAX screen is not an “IMAX” when non-IMAX content is shown.
For non-IMAX content, only ONE of the two projectors is used. I can’t remember whether IMAX turn off parts of whatever processing is in their “image enhancer” also.
(By definition, they must, since some of what it does doesn’t apply for single projector use—basically to do with auto alignment of the two projectors.)
Last time I was there for a 3D screening, before the main feature, I explained to some American tourists a couple of rows in front why they could only see through one of the 3D glasses lenses. They thought the glasses were foggy or something had gone wrong—albeit I suspect they weren’t exactly looking for the technical blurb on colour filtered lenses, used for IMAX with Laser, that I fed them with!
Admittedly, the only time I think this has happened for the main feature of a public screening (outside of e.g. Frightfest) is with “The Imitation Game,” and clearly Cineworld are having no problems getting “big title” IMAX films booked.
I imagine all references to the “IMPACT” screen are being dropped by Cineworld, although funnily enough, the current price list on their site actually has the Superscreen logo for the column of the prices table, but beneath it has “Off peak saver… Save £2.00 IMAX & IMPACT…”!
Still quite a way to go with final finishes, although it looks hopeful…
The “VIP” bar shown in the photo to which you provided a link is dire!
I’m guessing, from your photo into it in a stripped out state, that the former Screen 4 will be completely restepped with new “luxury” seating.
Robert: The former Screen 9 was indeed at the very upper level, in what was marked in plans in a previous licensing application as the “Film Booking Office”!
Berefit of any quality design other than (what I assume to be) a nice custom-made carpet, this fine theatre has been converted into a nightmare, what I would regard to be the very opposite of “escape to the movies”: a tacky socialites' cavern. :–(
I suppose it’s a different situation to the first weeks of a first run film where the distributor gets a large percentage of the net box office. Given the high level of seat fill, it seems that it would be good for Cineworld to do more of these “IMAX Film Festival” programmes off-season.
Regarding the positioning of the new concessions counter, I think you are right that it has been moved back.
Looking also at the “Cinema Level” plan in the 2016 licensing documents, it looks like it’s now in line with the kink in the wall for the store room/fire exit doors to Leicester Place/(what was then) Screen 4, liberating what I estimate to be ~5ft. of space—and thereby alleviating the “concession queues block toilets” scenario.
Is the “fake marble” counter material the same as used in other current generation Cineworld refurbs/new builds?
Zappomatic: Compared to the “commercial grade” RGBW LED strip I have*, I wouldn’t say it’s anywhere near as bright without a diffuser, even just turning one of the four LEDs in each chip on at full intensity. I think mine is somewhat brighter if I add a milky/opal diffuser.
With a clear lens-type diffuser or no diffuser, it’s actually dazzlingly bright directly viewed, particularly at close proxmity, possibly even to a dangerous extent—given that theirs are installed on the columns/pillars, one can imagine, say, kids being “stupid”, so I’m not sure such intensity would be sensible in that application.
OTOH, mine is concealed and angled towards a matt black finished wall (acoustic absorption), so I need as much output as possible!
That said, even with a more modest output, as a narrow “linear” light source, the LED strips may well appear rather bright compared to a darkened cinema auditorium.
Did you also find the “linear” LED mountings previously on the sidewalls/ceiling of the O2’s Superscreen excessively bright?
The recent inclement weather particularly affected rail services in my area, so I’ve still not had a chance to take a look.
I’ll be in the West End today, but it looks like there’s an “IMAX Film Festival”—trying to complete an online booking for a single seat results in a message stating that there is a minimum number of seats required. (The pricing is also odd, e.g. £3.70 adult (without “My Cineworld Plus” or an “Unlimited” card.) It works if I try to book 3 seats, at which point it turns out the IMAX auditorium is already fully booked from Row C to N in the central section.
Looks like all plans I have to get there before the foyer is complete are jinxed!
The new concessions counter is looking rather good, I must say.
Zappomatic: Thank you for the additional photos, looks like things are progressing, albeit I still can’t quite make sense of it—I’ll have a look this week for myself.
The “purple” coloured plasterboard looks like British Gypsum SoundBloc, although it looks like some of the paper has peeled off? I can’t imagine they’ve pained it “purple.”
Shame about the flithy porthole glass. :–( Presumably, you could take a microfibre cloth with you and clean it yourself! “Sounds like” (pun intended) a Superscreen visit is in order…
I visited the O2 today, alas for the purpose of meeting someone, and not for the cinema.
(Brit Awards were imminent so I decided to get out of there ASAP after the meeting finished!)
However, I did have a quick visit to Cineworld’s foyer. The “wrap around” of video LED modules is indeed active, and quite impressive.
The LED strips on the columns didn’t seem very bright, and the colour wasn’t interesting either, albeit they are probably using “milky” diffusers, which result in significant light loss.
The vertical LED strips either side of the main entrance escalators appear to be “addressable,” sometimes showing “rainbow” effects, other times just a linear strip of the same colour.
(N.B. “Pixel addressable” LED strips can be acquired, e.g. from eBay sellers, as those with integrated WS2812/APA102/etc. controllers. As with all Chinese-made generic product, caveat emptor!)
Floor tiles appear to be good quality, but the painted wall finishes I looked at were very poor indeed. It’s painfully obvious with the ceiling where the new video LED modules are bright enough to reveal the defects.
The gloss perspex/acrylic ceiling strips seem to be just stuck on to the ceiling with no backlighting to be added. Perspex is fairly expensive stuff (at least priced per sq. m.) and it can yield fantastic results, with many options including sparkle/metallic/pearlescent variants; I can’t help but think that this isn’t the way to use it to best effect.
The foyer looks good in photos, but in my view, more attention to detail is needed. Above all, given the expense of the video LED modules, it seems very odd that the walls aren’t even remotely smooth.
Sofas looked reasonable, but I forgot to try them out!
Photos uploaded: Foyer/new video LED modules “wrap around” display, close up of poorly finished foyer wall (including dent!), main entrance escalators/stairs with “rainbow” LED strips.
As a positive note, I hadn’t realised just how easy the O2 is to get to on the Jubilee Line from London Bridge. I shall return to check out the Superscreen…
Thanks Zappomatic. I’ve been tied up lately and still won’t be able to get there for a few days, so the photos are very much appreciated!
(More accurately, I could have gone there a few days ago, but it was cold, wet, and I was exhausted, and even I have to draw some limits to this cinema obsession business!)
Interestingly, the contractor appears to be Maeve Contractors, who have done completed various projects for Empire Cinemas, but none listed on their site for Cineworld. They were the main contractor for the IMAX/IMPACT conversion.
Perhaps they were contracted for this project as they know the ins and outs of the building and working in a such an inaccessible site.
Their work seems to be of a very good standard, and I am probably clutching at straws, but it might be a sign that Cineworld are taking their Leicester Square location very seriously.
Not sure what the “boxing” elements are for in your photos, it looks there is coving above the curved wall section? It does seem that there are more details than Cineworld’s rendering suggested, though.
There is a separate listed building application, in which a Historic England response advises that the additional roof levels could harm the “cubist” aspect of the building’s original external design, but the benefits of the scheme could outweigh this loss. They have authorised Camden Council to “decide as [they] see fit” with the application.
Some excerpts from the “Construction Method Statement and Basement Impact Statement”:
-Original building: “Steel frame with a masonry façade.”
–“Two storey basement formed with large reinforced concrete retaining walls.”
-1970s: Conversion to two screen cinema and partial conversion to offices, with “a completely remodelled auditorium.”
-2000s: “Extensive remodelling” to form four screens.
–“The new cinema layout constructed in the 1970s is predominately a steel frame, and […] has almost entirely replaced any of the original structure inside the retained façade.”
–“[Proposals are to remove] all of the internal structure of the existing building, leaving the façade and retaining wall to the existing two storey basement.”
–“The [proposed] superstructure [is] a traditional RC frame…”
–“The existing façade in the front atrium will be supported by new steel columns in the assumed location of the existing steel frame.”
Just in case anyone reading this (if anyone is still reading this post!) wondered how the proposed works are to proceed without walls tumbling over, details and drawings are provided on pp276-280 (!) of the PDF.
Onto a summary of some aspects of the proposed cinema.
The two largest auditoria are on the North West side of the building, with the screens positioned adjacent to Shaftesbury Avenue and New Compton Street. Alas, this means that the auditoria are not quite symmetrical. Both auditoria are about 100sq.m. in size, and the largest screen is, as marked on the drawings, according to my estimates, almost 40ft. wide, with the other a little smaller.
The first row in the largest auditoria is only ~0.25 screen widths away—too close!—but the screens are generously sized.
The two smaller auditoria are about 50sq.m. in size, and the screens I estimate to be about 20ft. wide.
Seating looks to be generously sized with ample legroom.
FWIW, “The Need for Renewal” document says “it would cost approximately £26 million to refurbish the building to a modern standard where it could continue to be let to a cinema operator.” It is certainly in a state of disrepair!
There is therefore plenty of potential for high quality modern auditoria, but that might be of little comfort given that this is essentially a façade retention scheme, and ~40ft. wide “immersive” screens are, perhaps, not suggestive of “art house” programming.
Zappomatic: Good point about the plasterboard! I think the fact that it’s white threw me off, but then they’d have to have repainted it anyway—the old paint was slightly cracked in one or more places, too.
I notice from Cineworld’s rendering that there is a “dropped” section of ceiling with decorative (concealed or strip) lighting, so I may have jumped the gun.
Actually, I’d not noticed that the spheres were silver, either. I should say that I assumed those ballustrates are from the ‘89 refurb, as they’re not shown in a photo from 1986.
Funnily enough, although I actually refered to photos 1/2 when writing my last post, I hadn’t actually made the connection that the concessions were previously in that section. Must have been tired!
By also viewing this FrightFest 2017 cinema tour (direct link to relevant section of video), it is easy to see that Cineworld are moving everything forward in line with the access to the Superscreen/upper level screens.
I was half-joking about “Passengers”-style model, but it doesn’t seem too far a stretch to pre-order all the concessions, turn up, get eticket validated on entry, concessions order is then automatically prepared, wait for your number to appear on the screen… (albeit that’s more like the McDonald’s/Argos model!)
I suppose we’re not there yet with robot auditorium cleaners…
Zappomatic: Ah! The paint looked OK from your photos, I guess it’ll be covered over with wall carpet or similar.
Ceiling, comparing your photos—1 and 2/3—the whole ceiling appears to be at the higher level, the metalwork already being in place, with no “coving” sections, albeit perhaps these could be attached later. I notice there is a “notch” cut out in the plasterboard, which might be for a “lightbox”-type feature, similar to those in Cineworld’s rendering?
I can’t imagine the sloped ceiling section will remain that way either—it’s not obvious whether those are the existing lights though; if they are, then clearly much of the lighting has been removed, along with the grilles for the air conditioning—but I’d assume it’s new plasterboard rather than messing about covering over those holes. Odd!
The moving of the curved wall section and partitioning off of the “box office” seems like a bad idea as I’d have thought that would be a good place to put concessions. However, that is the location depicted in the Cineworld rendering.
BTW, I assume the remaining bits of black marble you mention are by the 4DX entrance? I notice there is a veritable rat’s nest of wires hanging out of the room behind!
The balustrading at the edge of the landing towards the 4DX entrance looks somewhat out of place, with the spheres on top being the last vestiges of 80’s postmodernism from the ‘89 refurb.
As for a McDonald’s type ordering system, it’s not too hard to imagine the day when cinemas are like “Passengers” and humans are eliminated altogether!
Interesting, doesn’t seem to be something that appears among Eomac’s sample photos, but a quick Google search leads to a number of suppliers, at least one of which boasts their product yields a “seamless” finish. Wonder if they will replace the IMAX’s ceiling (though persumably not with reflective material!) as this all seems “no expense spared”…
I guess the right wall is simply painted with Perspex/acrylic strips attached?
Ceiling cove lighting looks a bit inconsistent and still annoyed by the loss of the marble-clad right wall… but… (in a positive way…)
Bl!?dy h#ll!
Ceiling above the curved wall section looks reflective?
(Odd coincidence that the title of films screened seem to reflect the occurrence of the most major works at the Cineworld/Empire LSQ: “Big Bad Wolves,” “Edge of Tomorrow,” and now “Rampage”—although I suppose that one should have coincided with the foyer strip-out!)
A slightly puzzling entry has appeared as a building control application:
“Cineworld 4D 2.0 – Saturday 28 April 2018. The structure will be truss based and include staging, graphics, Heras fencing, mobile LED screen.”
The “Agent Name” is Linney Create.
I can only assume it’s in relation to an opening event for the 4DX, given that the date is around the time of the 4DX opening, and it seems unlikely to be for a premiere of an Indian movie titled “2.0”!
Zappomatic:
Now now, excepting that it needed a lot of tidying up, I’m sure I’m not the only one who liked the old foyer! ;–)
(i.e. Domes/fibre optic starfield lighting/red flocking/marble wall panels (when not covered over with advertising!)/carpet.)
That reminds me—wonder what’s happened to the “Opened by HRH…” plaques?
Anyway, many thanks (yet again) for the update and photos. They do seem to be going to town on the refit—particularly with those “gold” panels!
Among the “junk” under the IMAX’s stadia, I can see what I’d assume to be sacks of Mapei screed, tubs of Mapei tile adhesive… and what might be boxes of tiles. New floor coming very soon, I’d imagine…
LOL!
PhilipWW: You’re most welcome, I’m glad to hear it’s appreciated!
IMAX don’t use the standard DCP format, they have their own extended version, IDF (IMAX Digital Format.) No idea what resolutions/frame rates are supported.
In any case, a different package would be supplied for laser venues, as the colour grading is different for “IMAX with Laser.” IMAX themselves listed 70mm IMAX, IMAX with Laser and IMAX Digital (Xenon) as the different IMAX formats “Dunkirk” was released in, and see also the IMDb Technical Specifications page for Dunkirk—notice the 1.43:1 ratio for IMAX with Laser.
The “laser” part of the projection is only the light source, DLP chips (or LCoS/SXRD in the case of Sony) are still used. Greater screen brightness, wider colour gamut (increased range of colours), and deeper blacks. On the other hand it has a number of technical challenges, hence IMAX acquired a number of patents from Kodak. The most well known is the “speckling” issue—one way IMAX ameliorates that is by attaching lots of small transducers (speakers) to the screen, which constantly slightly shake it!
I fully agree with your comments on framing and the strange design choices of so-called “large format” screens. I think the concept is, as with IMAX, to present a large wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling screen to the patron as soon as they walk into the cinema.
If one looks at a 1928 photo of the Empire Leicester Square Rebuilding Works and compares it to this part (direct link to time in video) of the The Installation of the Empire Leicester Square IMAX, looking carefully at the front of the auditorium on the left, then it seems fairly obvious that parts of the roof structure are “boxed out”—you can see the diagonal parts (I’m sure they have a name?) of the central roof truss.
So it becomes pretty obvious that the LSQ IMAX has the biggest screen size possible within the cinema’s demise. As 1.43:1 IMAX content may well be framed with 1.78:1 in mind for “home video” releases, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that the extra height could be used.
It seems odd that they’d have bothered to “jam” the screen in vertically otherwise, whilst presumably fitting in services (e.g. HVAC ducts), hanging the massive wall behind from the roof to boot, and commensurately moving up the curved parts of the ceiling to allow for sightlines.
It’s all somewhat by-the-by though really, as—because of the excellent geometry/alignment/black levels—1.9:1 content looks absolutely fine anyway. (Of course, for a screen lacking masking, if the projection can’t achieve straight and dark black edges around the picture, the picture won’t be properly framed.)
On the subject of “perfect” projection, or at least projection as good as possible under given conditions, that’s exactly what IMAX tries to do, with daily auto recalibration of picture/sound (camera and microphones in the auditorium for this), and continuous monitoring of the picture with adjustments made by IMAX’s “image enhancer” to keep everything aligned at all times, as well as remote monitoring by IMAX in Mississauga (Ontario, Canada.)
It would, of course, be reasonable to be cynical about IMAX’s claims—albeit some of the system’s details are disclosed in their patents—but at least at the Cineworld/Empire Leicester Square, it seems to work!
Zappomatic: Thank you, once again, for the comprehensive update and all of the photos, forming a very nice record of the foyer refurb.
The “gold” square panels look glitzy indeed! I had thought that they could have addressable lights, or use LED panel modules, programmed with a “glittering” pattern, so it’s a shame that they are just backlit. Wonder what they’re actually made of?
All sounding rather promising (and expensive!) with the stretched fabric ceiling.
Do you mean the carpet pattern featuring circular shapes?
Seems likely that the former Screens 4/5 will feature large reclining red seating, but not sure there’s enough space in the rest as there are already so few rows…
PhilipWW: The auditorium must be approved by IMAX, it isn’t just the equipment in the booth.
For instance, in the case of the Empire/Cineworld LSQ IMAX, some of the seats are not available for IMAX 2D presentations, and even more for IMAX 3D presentations.
Equipment-wise, the screen and surround speakers are supplied by IMAX also.
If you take a very close look at the part of IMAX’s Installation of the Empire Leicester Square IMAX video (direct link to time) where the screen is being carried into the auditorium, you’ll notice the screen was supplied by Strong/MDI.
No idea whether they make a custom product for IMAX. However, for polarisation-based 3D systems, IMAX does have their own silver spray paint system which is actually applied by a custom rig in-situ, for example:
London BFI IMAX Screen Replacement. (Direct link to time again.)
Of course, the Empire was due to have the laser projection system installed, which uses wavelength-based 3D, i.e. slightly different RGB wavelengths for each eye, with the unwanted wavelengths filtered by the glasses, so I guess they didn’t bother with the silver coating as the screen would need to be replaced. (Ditto at the Chinese Theatre, going by the timelapse video of the IMAX conversion.)
As for aspect ratio, Empire Cinemas stated the screen size as 26.5mx15.6m (~87ft.x51ft), yielding a ratio of approx 1.7:1.
(Notice that the screen isn’t completely filled in the above linked video, as the Xenon light source IMAX projectors were installed then.)
The IMAX with Laser projection system is capable of 1.4:1 for “classic” IMAX venues, and I’m not sure whether the extra height is actually used at the Cineworld/Empire LSQ, although it did seem to be well-filled for “Dunkirk.”
It’s a somewhat moot point as most IMAX content is now maximum (or should that be minimum?) 1.9:1 anyway. The “letterboxing” occurs, of course, with many IMAX features, as not all are 1.9:1 throughout or at all.
Empire Cinemas gave the Superscreen size as 20.5mx11m (~67ft.x36ft.), or approx. 1.85:1 ratio. I’m not sure if the projectors can actually fill the screen either horizontally or vertically (haven’t been there in some time.) It is, however, equipped with dual 4K projection, moved over from the former Screen 1. (2xBarco DP4K-32B.)
Can the LSQ Superscreen be considered as a “premiere” cinema, or is does that monker only truly apply to the IMAX? I suppose we shall see what Cineworld does in due course, e.g. the former Screen 1 was equipped with 4xBarco 2K projectors for the Avatar premiere, to get adequate 3D brightness levels, early adoption of Dolby Atmos, and back in 35mm days, all the digital sound formats, etc. You’d think laser projection would be ideal for the Superscreen…
P.S. On the subject of the various 3D systems, here’s an interview with Dave Norris, former projection manager at the Empire, by Mark “I Hate 3D” Kermode. He states that the IMAX with Laser system at LSQ achieved over 12 foot-lamberts.
Coincidentally, multiplex refurbishment is the subject of several several articles in the current issue of Cinema Technology Magazine.
Under the “Further information” tab of the Building Standards (not “Building Control” in Scotland!) page you’ve linked to, the declared “Value of Work” is £3m.
The 13th screen seems to have already been refurbished:
Building Standards Warrant Summary for 4DX Auditorium Conversion.
The declared “Value of Work” for which is £450,000, and the “Completion Accepted Date” is the 17th January 2018.
The 8/70 format Iwerks system mentioned in CT’s description has presumably long since been removed.
Hmm, assuming that Screens 4 and 5 become 1 and 2, that creates a neat arrangement where, as one enters from LSQ, Screens 1-3 are to the left, and 5-7 are up the stairs to the right.
It would perhaps make more sense if the 4DX was Screen 1. However, that would mean the former Screen 6 would be numbered Screen 4, potentially risking annoyed patrons for the 4DX going all the way down the stairs and up again, only to find themselves in the former Screen 6, and then being sent down the stairs again to get to the 4DX!
I suppose the 4DX won’t be signed “Screen 4” anyway, so in practice it should appear to be a sensible arrangement.
PhilipWW: The IMAX screen is not an “IMAX” when non-IMAX content is shown.
For non-IMAX content, only ONE of the two projectors is used. I can’t remember whether IMAX turn off parts of whatever processing is in their “image enhancer” also.
(By definition, they must, since some of what it does doesn’t apply for single projector use—basically to do with auto alignment of the two projectors.)
Last time I was there for a 3D screening, before the main feature, I explained to some American tourists a couple of rows in front why they could only see through one of the 3D glasses lenses. They thought the glasses were foggy or something had gone wrong—albeit I suspect they weren’t exactly looking for the technical blurb on colour filtered lenses, used for IMAX with Laser, that I fed them with!
Admittedly, the only time I think this has happened for the main feature of a public screening (outside of e.g. Frightfest) is with “The Imitation Game,” and clearly Cineworld are having no problems getting “big title” IMAX films booked.
I imagine all references to the “IMPACT” screen are being dropped by Cineworld, although funnily enough, the current price list on their site actually has the Superscreen logo for the column of the prices table, but beneath it has “Off peak saver… Save £2.00 IMAX & IMPACT…”!
You, too, can hire it out for a disco night!
YouTube video of the Ziegfeld Ballroom.
(IMO… tacky in all respects…)
Zappomatic: Thank you for the update and photos.
Still quite a way to go with final finishes, although it looks hopeful…
The “VIP” bar shown in the photo to which you provided a link is dire!
I’m guessing, from your photo into it in a stripped out state, that the former Screen 4 will be completely restepped with new “luxury” seating.
Robert: The former Screen 9 was indeed at the very upper level, in what was marked in plans in a previous licensing application as the “Film Booking Office”!
Video of the auditorium shot during the end credits of the final screening (Back to the Future III).
“Photosphere” 360° photo.
Berefit of any quality design other than (what I assume to be) a nice custom-made carpet, this fine theatre has been converted into a nightmare, what I would regard to be the very opposite of “escape to the movies”: a tacky socialites' cavern. :–(
I suppose it’s a different situation to the first weeks of a first run film where the distributor gets a large percentage of the net box office. Given the high level of seat fill, it seems that it would be good for Cineworld to do more of these “IMAX Film Festival” programmes off-season.
Regarding the positioning of the new concessions counter, I think you are right that it has been moved back.
Looking also at the “Cinema Level” plan in the 2016 licensing documents, it looks like it’s now in line with the kink in the wall for the store room/fire exit doors to Leicester Place/(what was then) Screen 4, liberating what I estimate to be ~5ft. of space—and thereby alleviating the “concession queues block toilets” scenario.
Is the “fake marble” counter material the same as used in other current generation Cineworld refurbs/new builds?
Zappomatic: Compared to the “commercial grade” RGBW LED strip I have*, I wouldn’t say it’s anywhere near as bright without a diffuser, even just turning one of the four LEDs in each chip on at full intensity. I think mine is somewhat brighter if I add a milky/opal diffuser.
With a clear lens-type diffuser or no diffuser, it’s actually dazzlingly bright directly viewed, particularly at close proxmity, possibly even to a dangerous extent—given that theirs are installed on the columns/pillars, one can imagine, say, kids being “stupid”, so I’m not sure such intensity would be sensible in that application.
OTOH, mine is concealed and angled towards a matt black finished wall (acoustic absorption), so I need as much output as possible!
That said, even with a more modest output, as a narrow “linear” light source, the LED strips may well appear rather bright compared to a darkened cinema auditorium.
Did you also find the “linear” LED mountings previously on the sidewalls/ceiling of the O2’s Superscreen excessively bright?
(* Dexxon Lighting 24V – 60x RGBW 5050 LEDs/m – 19.2W/m – IP20 LED strip. N.B. I wouldn’t trust any of the specs on that page!)
Indeed! Expressed that way, though, even more odd. £3 for an IMAX with Laser screening in the West End?
Thanks Zappomatic for all the updates and photos.
The recent inclement weather particularly affected rail services in my area, so I’ve still not had a chance to take a look.
I’ll be in the West End today, but it looks like there’s an “IMAX Film Festival”—trying to complete an online booking for a single seat results in a message stating that there is a minimum number of seats required. (The pricing is also odd, e.g. £3.70 adult (without “My Cineworld Plus” or an “Unlimited” card.) It works if I try to book 3 seats, at which point it turns out the IMAX auditorium is already fully booked from Row C to N in the central section.
Looks like all plans I have to get there before the foyer is complete are jinxed!
The new concessions counter is looking rather good, I must say.
Zappomatic: Thank you for the additional photos, looks like things are progressing, albeit I still can’t quite make sense of it—I’ll have a look this week for myself.
The “purple” coloured plasterboard looks like British Gypsum SoundBloc, although it looks like some of the paper has peeled off? I can’t imagine they’ve pained it “purple.”
Shame about the flithy porthole glass. :–( Presumably, you could take a microfibre cloth with you and clean it yourself! “Sounds like” (pun intended) a Superscreen visit is in order…
Oops! Maybe if they offered to pay out £1749 (that’s one thousand seven hundred and forty nine) I might consider seeing it. ;–)
I visited the O2 today, alas for the purpose of meeting someone, and not for the cinema.
(Brit Awards were imminent so I decided to get out of there ASAP after the meeting finished!)
However, I did have a quick visit to Cineworld’s foyer. The “wrap around” of video LED modules is indeed active, and quite impressive.
The LED strips on the columns didn’t seem very bright, and the colour wasn’t interesting either, albeit they are probably using “milky” diffusers, which result in significant light loss.
The vertical LED strips either side of the main entrance escalators appear to be “addressable,” sometimes showing “rainbow” effects, other times just a linear strip of the same colour.
(N.B. “Pixel addressable” LED strips can be acquired, e.g. from eBay sellers, as those with integrated WS2812/APA102/etc. controllers. As with all Chinese-made generic product, caveat emptor!)
Floor tiles appear to be good quality, but the painted wall finishes I looked at were very poor indeed. It’s painfully obvious with the ceiling where the new video LED modules are bright enough to reveal the defects.
The gloss perspex/acrylic ceiling strips seem to be just stuck on to the ceiling with no backlighting to be added. Perspex is fairly expensive stuff (at least priced per sq. m.) and it can yield fantastic results, with many options including sparkle/metallic/pearlescent variants; I can’t help but think that this isn’t the way to use it to best effect.
The foyer looks good in photos, but in my view, more attention to detail is needed. Above all, given the expense of the video LED modules, it seems very odd that the walls aren’t even remotely smooth.
Sofas looked reasonable, but I forgot to try them out!
Photos uploaded: Foyer/new video LED modules “wrap around” display, close up of poorly finished foyer wall (including dent!), main entrance escalators/stairs with “rainbow” LED strips.
As a positive note, I hadn’t realised just how easy the O2 is to get to on the Jubilee Line from London Bridge. I shall return to check out the Superscreen…
Thanks Zappomatic. I’ve been tied up lately and still won’t be able to get there for a few days, so the photos are very much appreciated!
(More accurately, I could have gone there a few days ago, but it was cold, wet, and I was exhausted, and even I have to draw some limits to this cinema obsession business!)
Interestingly, the contractor appears to be Maeve Contractors, who have done completed various projects for Empire Cinemas, but none listed on their site for Cineworld. They were the main contractor for the IMAX/IMPACT conversion.
Perhaps they were contracted for this project as they know the ins and outs of the building and working in a such an inaccessible site.
Their work seems to be of a very good standard, and I am probably clutching at straws, but it might be a sign that Cineworld are taking their Leicester Square location very seriously.
Not sure what the “boxing” elements are for in your photos, it looks there is coving above the curved wall section? It does seem that there are more details than Cineworld’s rendering suggested, though.
Screen 8 for the IMAX? Very strange…
Jasonmullen: Thank you for the heads up—the main planning application.
There is a separate listed building application, in which a Historic England response advises that the additional roof levels could harm the “cubist” aspect of the building’s original external design, but the benefits of the scheme could outweigh this loss. They have authorised Camden Council to “decide as [they] see fit” with the application.
Some excerpts from the “Construction Method Statement and Basement Impact Statement”:
-Original building: “Steel frame with a masonry façade.”
–“Two storey basement formed with large reinforced concrete retaining walls.”
-1970s: Conversion to two screen cinema and partial conversion to offices, with “a completely remodelled auditorium.”
-2000s: “Extensive remodelling” to form four screens.
–“The new cinema layout constructed in the 1970s is predominately a steel frame, and […] has almost entirely replaced any of the original structure inside the retained façade.”
–“[Proposals are to remove] all of the internal structure of the existing building, leaving the façade and retaining wall to the existing two storey basement.”
–“The [proposed] superstructure [is] a traditional RC frame…”
–“The existing façade in the front atrium will be supported by new steel columns in the assumed location of the existing steel frame.”
Just in case anyone reading this (if anyone is still reading this post!) wondered how the proposed works are to proceed without walls tumbling over, details and drawings are provided on pp276-280 (!) of the PDF.
Onto a summary of some aspects of the proposed cinema.
The two largest auditoria are on the North West side of the building, with the screens positioned adjacent to Shaftesbury Avenue and New Compton Street. Alas, this means that the auditoria are not quite symmetrical. Both auditoria are about 100sq.m. in size, and the largest screen is, as marked on the drawings, according to my estimates, almost 40ft. wide, with the other a little smaller.
The first row in the largest auditoria is only ~0.25 screen widths away—too close!—but the screens are generously sized.
The two smaller auditoria are about 50sq.m. in size, and the screens I estimate to be about 20ft. wide.
Seating looks to be generously sized with ample legroom.
FWIW, “The Need for Renewal” document says “it would cost approximately £26 million to refurbish the building to a modern standard where it could continue to be let to a cinema operator.” It is certainly in a state of disrepair!
There is therefore plenty of potential for high quality modern auditoria, but that might be of little comfort given that this is essentially a façade retention scheme, and ~40ft. wide “immersive” screens are, perhaps, not suggestive of “art house” programming.
Zappomatic: Good point about the plasterboard! I think the fact that it’s white threw me off, but then they’d have to have repainted it anyway—the old paint was slightly cracked in one or more places, too.
I notice from Cineworld’s rendering that there is a “dropped” section of ceiling with decorative (concealed or strip) lighting, so I may have jumped the gun.
Actually, I’d not noticed that the spheres were silver, either. I should say that I assumed those ballustrates are from the ‘89 refurb, as they’re not shown in a photo from 1986.
Of course, the landing/Screen 2 access was a later addition, as can be seen in Wonderful First Night (1964) newsreel footage. (Direct link to relevant time in video.)
Funnily enough, although I actually refered to photos 1/2 when writing my last post, I hadn’t actually made the connection that the concessions were previously in that section. Must have been tired!
By also viewing this FrightFest 2017 cinema tour (direct link to relevant section of video), it is easy to see that Cineworld are moving everything forward in line with the access to the Superscreen/upper level screens.
I was half-joking about “Passengers”-style model, but it doesn’t seem too far a stretch to pre-order all the concessions, turn up, get eticket validated on entry, concessions order is then automatically prepared, wait for your number to appear on the screen… (albeit that’s more like the McDonald’s/Argos model!)
I suppose we’re not there yet with robot auditorium cleaners…
Zappomatic: Ah! The paint looked OK from your photos, I guess it’ll be covered over with wall carpet or similar.
Ceiling, comparing your photos—1 and 2/3—the whole ceiling appears to be at the higher level, the metalwork already being in place, with no “coving” sections, albeit perhaps these could be attached later. I notice there is a “notch” cut out in the plasterboard, which might be for a “lightbox”-type feature, similar to those in Cineworld’s rendering?
I can’t imagine the sloped ceiling section will remain that way either—it’s not obvious whether those are the existing lights though; if they are, then clearly much of the lighting has been removed, along with the grilles for the air conditioning—but I’d assume it’s new plasterboard rather than messing about covering over those holes. Odd!
The moving of the curved wall section and partitioning off of the “box office” seems like a bad idea as I’d have thought that would be a good place to put concessions. However, that is the location depicted in the Cineworld rendering.
BTW, I assume the remaining bits of black marble you mention are by the 4DX entrance? I notice there is a veritable rat’s nest of wires hanging out of the room behind!
The balustrading at the edge of the landing towards the 4DX entrance looks somewhat out of place, with the spheres on top being the last vestiges of 80’s postmodernism from the ‘89 refurb.
As for a McDonald’s type ordering system, it’s not too hard to imagine the day when cinemas are like “Passengers” and humans are eliminated altogether!
Case study on Cineworld Bracknell’s drylining installation.
From the case study:
-3 layers GTEC dB Board with glass wool insulation – 74 RwdB attenuation.
-GTEC Fire MR board used for 1 hour fire resistance.
The architect was Chapman Taylor, with the main contractor being Mace and the drylining subcontractor was Fireclad.
The page includes a number of photos of the shell/core stage. Another site has photos taken towards the end of the fit-out.