Showing 1 - 25 of 128 comments
We have spoken to management. We are not posting random listings about showings or whatnot. There is no official facebook for this theater.
And come on twitter? 144 characters?
Neither of those places gets any movie theater discussion going on.
This is a place for knowledgeable people to get a clue about the size of screens, type of projection, what the current status of projection is, etc.
Not sure why they have those on. I didn’t think the ceiling lights had been on at all when I went to this theater, although I could be wrong. They were definitely off at Reading.
Ah, OK so you wear glasses. I think that explains it.
(that person with me wore glasses and saw doubling but no reflections, but with glasses that makes a lot more chances for things to go badly and reflections to crop up, I never wear glasses to movies, glasses also make things look smaller than contacts so screen size seems less impressive too)
Maybe they got rid of the bad glasses, but for SW there were definitely a lot of bad ones at this theater unless we were so insanely unlucky to have like the only 2 bad ones out of hundreds (I also note a few other people have mentioned some weird doubling on parts of the screen here too so I think it’s got to be, or at least used to be, could still be, some to many bum glasses here even if all of them are not).
The glasses at Reading were different, even smaller lenses, but perfect (at least for contact or no glasses wearers). I wish they had kept the old ones for non-glasses wearers and just experimented with special ones for glasses wearers since it seems they messed them up totally for non-glasses wearers (although maybe it was simply poor QC on many of the pairs and nothing directly to do with that). (I also wonder if wearing glasses maybe somehow let you see more just through the center of the lens and avoid doubling even with bad glasses if your prescription is of a certain sort?).
The bitching is because the glasses are messed up here. Many of the pairs only have the coating applied to the very center of the right lens so you get left and right signal into parts of the right eye field of vision.
At the other laser IMAX install I went to they had different glasses and it was perfection.
For me it was the opposite. Right eye coated badly on both pairs of glasses lead to ghosting on left side of the screen (verified by person I was with). Neither of us saw our face in the glasses or had any reflection problems.
Polarized IMAX actually does have tiny levels of doubling (and if you see it on a screen that was not meant for it, as I have seen happen with a Real 3D screen at one theater, you can even get extreme doubling at times across the entire screen). The Laser system where they block frequencies can provide a 100% perfect experience. They are not using the old Dolby 3D system but something way better and more advanced since with lasers than can tun the primaries perfectly and use sharp cut filters that really cut things perfectly and also have a wide gamut and very rich colors.
I guess something about the angles on your face vs our faces changes the angles of reflection so we saw nothing while you had issues (or maybe that we sat way near the very back helps something about the angles of reflection and incident light, etc). Not sure why you saw no doubling, maybe only a certain percentage of the glasses are bad, maybe you didn’t realize it, maybe your eyes are wide set (which would have switched the problem from left side to instead far left and far right and maybe out there you didn’t pay it as much mind? espcieally perhaps not having even seen a fully working laser 3D imax and not knowing how much mind blowingly better it can be than the polarized type? or maybe you did just luck out with properly made glasses.
Wouldn’t a grand opening ad actually be 100% on topic though? If this site is about the history of movie theaters how is that not on topic?
Maybe some of the other posts were all over the place, but how is this possibly not 100% on topic?
Look at books or threads here on some of the classic old cinemas and they feature grand opening ads and such when they can.
no, that would be cool
I did find a grand opening ad for the 2000+ seat old Stanley Warner Paramus, anyway this is the wrong thread for that.
Yeah it’s gotta be way bigger than the one at Empire. The Empire IMAX isn’t even all that large as regular digital IMAX screen goes and the Dolby is not allowed to be bigger and yet the Loews screen here is already noticeably larger than the IMAX at Empire if my info is correct (65' screen?). I was there at a premiere once and it seemed pretty large, although the auditorium was so different than most I’ve been in recently it was a little trickier to judge exact dimensions, but it felt at least upper 50' wide and could have been 65'.
Ziegfeld was cool, really a shame that was lost. That said, it’s screen wasn’t really all that huge. It was smaller than most regular digital IMAX screens wasn’t it? I think the actual screen size was only 50'. That was large by old 70s multiplex standards but nothing special by any old modern, suburban multiplex standard and not like the 60'-65' screens some of the single screen palaces in the region used to have.
With properly made glasses though the laser system can allow for much better 3D with ZERO ghosting. Believe me the Reading install with the type 1 glasses was beyond phenomemonal 3D, miles better than all that polarized stuff. Miles better.
I don’t trust this theater for their type 2 glasses where the right lens doesn’t filter out the left eye signal well, only in a thin band in the middle of the right lenses. Ridiculous.
As far as I was concerned everything about the Reading Laser IMAX theater is perfection other than for the sound being way too loud (incredible quality just way insanely too loud, for sure these volumes will lead to permanent hearing damage if you see movies at any remote regularity without heavy duty ear plugs (at which point you lose all the amazing quality of the speakers) and I’m not really crazy about the butt kickers in the seats, maybe adds to it at times sure, but can also be uncomfortable too and rattle your head and neck and sometimes a little distracting, depending.
(this install also as the same insane volume levels of course, most theaters today do with IMAX ones though always guaranteed to always be uncomfortable and ear damaging and even louder than 85% or more of other super loud theaters; people have used sound meters and found peaks at least 117dB and sustained levels of 100dB and some movies at the louder theaters these days AVERAGING 95dB over two hours, I think someone found a showing that averaged 100dB for like 1hr45m)
@CHH32 “besides the blue lights on the floor, I don’t know if anyone has noticed, they also left a row of the ceiling lights on after the movie started(Not sure if they are lights or holes). They are straightly above the EXIT signs near the two entrances. You could see them when you look up or look at the walls above the EXIT signs, especially during the dark scenes”
I didn’t quite notice that or at least not note it to remember, but maybe it explains while the blacks, while pretty excellent compared to what you see anywhere today, still didn’t strike as quite the perfection they were in Reading with their Laser system run in a virtually pitch black theater.
@ vertigoman – “I can see the reflection of my own eyeballs in the glasses”
hmm that’s weird, you mean as sort of a general reflected blur or sharp details, since the glasses are only like what ½" inch from your pupil and that is way too close to see crisp detail, nobody can focus that close unless they are both very nearsighted and not wearing glasses or contacts (at which point the screen would be a total blur), unless they are doing some weird projection somehow
were those type 1 or type 2 glasses or both?
I wsih to hell Reading had not watched everyone exiting like hawks and I had been able to pocket a couple pairs of the working type 1 glasses. Could clean them up nicely and not have to worry about the typical dirty wreck that IMAX glasses are or the double vision mess of the faulty type 2 glasses.
That’s a shame then since I was hoping they were going 2D here since they’d finally admitted they didn’t coat the right lenses properly here.
As far as the blue light goes, I always sit dead center for 3D stuff and on a screen like this I’d never sit lower 1/3. Where I was the blue light stuff could not be seen (that said the blacks didn’t seem quite as utterly pitch as they did up in Reading where they really, really turn the house lights down old school, they just had the barest hints of lights on a few steps, it was awesomely dark like before everyone because paranoid of lawsuits for people tripping).
I’m surprised you could clearly see your own reflection since they glasses are so close they are too close for an eye too focus on, maybe you means something slightly different and maybe it only happens with bad seats like off to the edge (always terrible idea for any 3D movie just in general since it tends to confuse the eyes since the 3D projection was programmed for a head on view so it can cause eye fatigue or feel slightly off in an indescribable way) and way up front (maybe being that close lets the screen reflect into your eyes more off the lenses?). Whatever the case I didn’t see that with type 1 or type 2 glasses (I did see tons of reflections at Reading BEFORE the house ceiling lights got turned off, but who cares at that point, once they turned it off to start the movie it was just perfection).
I just wish to hell they had stuck with the type 1 glasses which gave a truly awesome, utterly perfect experience. Went from hands down the best, most revolutionary projection experience to a total mess with the faulty type 2 glasses and the ridiculously skinny little part in the center they coated the right lenses. I know the coatings are expensive but come on, cover the lens.
Rockaway has been AMC since since day one, since the early 80s at least, maybe very late 70s.
plus AMC card discounts add up
and free online ticketing, etc.
I’d have to think they’d dump the Sparta 3 and not this major theater. I’d hate to see them dump this one, since AMC shows lots of the TCM classics and such that other chains don’t seem too.
Not sure why they have to get rid of either. Do we even have Carmikes anywhere in the region?
I don’t get what the reflection talk is about since a proper laser imax shuts all house lights off. And I see many it turns out where complaing about reflections from people’s cellphones but come on that is the obnoxious cell phone user’s fault, not the glasses. That is distacting as heck even when not wearing glasses at all.
All it lead is them switching from awesome gen one glasses to messed up gen two glasses.
@hdtv267 – what he said is relevant since it means that one theater is showing it in 2D and one 3D so maybe it adds to the speculation that there is a specific reason they are not showing it 3D at this one, i.e. some issues with the glasses maybe.
The Laser IMAX 3D with the gen one glasses at Jordan’s Boston was AMAZING though. Bar none far and away the best 3D I’ve ever seen. For some reason the glasses, at least a good it seems, of the gen two glasses they gave to Lincoln Square IMAX have messed up right lenses. The coating only blocks the left eye signal in the center of the lens so if your eyes are narrow spaced the left side of the screen gets doubling, regular widish spaced then you see the edges of the screen doubled, wide spaced then maybe the right side looks a bit doubled.
They shoulda just stuck with the amazing gen one glasses. I"m telling you TFA in Laser 3D in Boston was mind blowingly good 3D. Absolutely zero ghosting, amazing detail, great color, fantastic blacks, wide dynamic range, just the most natural 3D I’ve ever seen bar none. Literally like you were wearing no glasses and just there.
But they messed up at least some, maybe most to all of the glasses at this install, bad right lenses as best as I could tell. A shame since the laser install and screen and all seem to be working fine.
“John Fink on August 25, 2010 at 3:58 pm:
The IMAX here is one of the least immersive and underwhelming I’ve seen. The screen isn’t wall to wall as they’re are two access corridors to the exits behind the screen.”
Ah man, so I finally got around to actually seeing an IMAX movie at this theater and the screen is HUGE. I don’t know how you came up with that statement above. I can now verify it’s not even remotely true (well it is true it isn’t wall to wall). This is the largest digiIMAX screen I’ve seen. I can’t believe I let that comment make me write this screen off all these years without even bothering to give it a try. This is way bigger than the Empire 25 IMAX.
I could swear it’s bigger than the Rockaway IMAX, which itself is about as large as most of the digiIMAX usually get and larger than the Empire 25 IMAX, for instance.
And all these years I’m complaining about how they subdivided the old giant screen and then tore down the old Stanley Warner Paramus and how they never gave Paramus back a screen as big and it turns out this IMAX here is almost certainly just a bit larger than that old Stanley Warner screen had been (the auditorium is way smaller though of course, that one sat a crazy 2000 people! but the screen is what counts the most and this one is I think probably a couple feet or so wider). So for heading towards almost a decade now there has been a screen as big or bigger around.
It’s the biggest non-true-IMAX screen I’ve ever seen (well other than for Mann’s Chinese out in LA). I guess Lincoln Square’s largest non-IMAX is pretty huge too, I think this one is even a little bit larger though, certainly taller than that one since that is not digiIMAX 1.90:1 but wider aspect ratio.
I think it’s heading towards being as wide as the old true IMAX that they just tore down in that mall near Nyack NY, although maybe it falls a touch shy of that. If it were wall to wall (and it’s not due to the exits), I’d dare say it’d be likely even wider than the old true Nyack IMAX. That would give it another 8' width or so. For anything other than full 1.44:1 IMAX ratio I think this screen actually gives just about the same impressive feel as that one.
I do think they have the volume up a bit higher than the auditorium can handle since it seems to get some structural resonances during certain loud parts and really would sound better if they lowered the volume a touch (would be more comfortable listening volume that way anyway since loud parts, as is so incredibly common these days, are into hearing damaging zone).
Other than for the two big houses here, as best as I can recall the other screens ranged from fairly small (probably the size of the very smallest screens at the Rockaway AMC) to true old 80s multiplex shoebox size (very noticeably smaller than anything at the new Rockaway AMC more like some of the tiny ones at Parsippany which also has pretty much small to shoebox screens other than for the two bigger ones).
(Smallest all time screen I have ever seen was one of the ones at the old Paramus Stanley Warner after their final round of sub-dividing. They took the giant 2000 double deck palace and split it eventually eight screens! on two levels. Once saw a movie in one of those and it was seriously barely larger than the biggest HDTV you find today. I seriously don’t think it was more than 10 feet wide!)
I was wondering why no movies seemed to be listed for #8 when I checked back in December and again today. I was hoping it had meant when they put in the IMAX they had combined the two THX houses into one really huge IMAX screen. I guess not though.
Haven’t seen a movie here in a long time. Perhaps getting back to the Attack of the Clones days!
I liked their THX screen back then since the speakers were both great and not absurdly ear-damaging loud like at most places. THX quality sound but with the loud but reasonable volume most theaters used to use way back once upon a time.
It wasn’t the world’s biggest screen but not too bad in size, especially for back then. I wonder how big it is now that they converted it to IMAX. I’d guess it has to be at least a bit smaller than the Rockaway IMAX since I just see how they could fit a screen that size in there and certainly no match for the Paramus IMAX.
I don’t know what the top grossing one in the state is but apparently AMC says it is their premiere, head theater in all of Northern NJ at the very least. Any special anything always gets done at this screen, if anywhere it seems.
As for the rest of the theater….
I didn’t peak at #1 but it has a huge seating capacity and the screen is probably pretty large.
I peaked at #2 the IMAX. Looking in it actually looked to me larger than Rockaway IMAX screen (which itself it a touch larger than the IMAX screen at the Empire 25 near the Port Authority Bus Terminal which I think they say is 57' or 58' screen). I had avoided bothering with it since someone had posted here that it was the tiniest most underwhelming IMAX experience they ever had. But I guess they were just comparing to the old 15/70 full size true IMAX screens or something because this is the biggest 1.90:1 digital IMAX screen I have seen anywhere yet. I now think the Paramus IMAX might be the biggest screen in all of northern NJ (although I haven’t seen the IMAX near the Newark Airport yet). Actually I think it is probably the biggest screen in the entire state of NJ other than for two true IMAX screens in the Atlantic City area way down south. I mean I could be wrong but I could swear it looked larger than the Rockaway one. Going by seat count across and how many seats wide it seemed to be I think it was a number of seats wider. I think it’s 32-33 seats wide while I think the Rockaway is probably more like 29 seats wide? Could be wrong.
I also peaked at #3 the Dolby Cinama screen and that looked pretty large too. Not quite sure how big it is but I think it’s probably at least as big as the Rockaway IMAX and it could be bigger.
And I think it is #5 that is also pretty large, although I didn’t see it. It’s probably like the larger non-IMAX screens at Rockaway.
So other than for the one screen out of 16 I think this theater doesn’t have any of those horrible small screens. Rockaway has none (Rockaway has a pretty decent #8 IMAX screen size for digital, maybe 60'-61' and then 3 other screens that are pretty large, all over 50' and at least two of three like 56'-57' these are #1,#9,#16 and then #2,#7,#10,#15 are somewhat smaller bit still pretty large as multiplex screens go; #4,#5,#12,#13 are the smallest, but still not bad by old 80s or city multiplex standards).
Reading theater in Manville NJ also has some larger screens (also some very tiny ones). The two big ones I think are at least as wide as the Rockaway IMAX but 2.35:1 ratio and I think a little bit shorter.
Ended up going there and #10 seated something like 211, most of the rest down that end of the theater seat more like 264, but, as so often, seating capacity has nothing to do with screen size. I peaked in at most of the screens at that end and regardless of seating they all had the same size screen aside from #12 which had a much larger screen (much larger than the other 264 seaters down at that end which all had the same size screen as the 211 and smaller capacity auditoriums there).
I didn’t see either #15 or #16, I think one of those two actually also has a much larger screen and probably seats well over 264.
Anyway most of the screens down there are not huge screens but they are decent. Much bigger than tiny shoe box screens some places have. And in one of those old 80s style multiplexes, like the old Rockaway theater or the Parsippany they would have actually been among the very larger screens.
I think this theater probably only has one really small screen out of the 16. I think it is near the bathrooms across from the food stands, maybe it is #4 (or perhaps it is #6,7,8,9?). Walking past that area, the door was open and I could see straight down the aisle to the screen. I just glanced from a distance but it looked really small, like a small old 80s multiplex smaller size screen. Pretty sure that one is much smaller than the smallest ones at Rockaway (which aren’t that bad, probably similar to #10 and a bunch at that end here, or only just a bit smaller).